User talk:Loriendrew/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Loriendrew. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

re: Steve Scott article and Managing a conflict of interest

Hi Loriendrew, thanks so much for taking the time to write me a message on 19 October 2016. Regarding the article on Steve Scott, I understand your concern and I want to assure you that I had read the wiki guidelines back in 2014 before deciding to write the article. With those guidelines in mind I initiated the article which was approved by wiki in March 2014. While I appreciate your contribution at the same time it feels abusive. You took it upon yourself to decide what was notable and what was not. The charts I posted may not be as famous as the billboard but they are relevant to the people that follow "Americana" and "Roots Music" artists that is the same for the chart published by Relix magazine. I did my best in writing the article which also has gone through many other reviewers before you and none of them contacted me for violating wiki rules or for self-promoting language or for questionable notability. I wrote the article and not the artist. I also took the time to read many other articles before starting to write. I am certainly open to and appreciate any constructive recommendation you might have to improve the quality of the article. You've removed most of the pictures I posted on the article but left all the other images I posted in other artists' articles. It feels like you have something personal against this particular artist. Most of the other reviewers welcomed the images I posted on artists' wiki. Wiki pages look so much better when there are images embed in the article. Don't you agree? I'd appreciate if you could remove the tag you've placed on the article and restore the images, charts and text. I look forward to your reply.User:Stefanianj 14:01, 6 December 2016 UTC

For an overall outlook please take a look at the Manual of style for biographies. To get into more specific details let me go over them one by one:

1. There are notability guidelines for almost everything, in this case WP:MUSICBIO.
2. There are verifiability guidelines, where sources and citations need to come from reliable sources.
3. There are guidelines for lists and tables. One good place to look is WP:LISTCRITERIA. A basic rule of thumb is that a notable award will have an article.
4. Tracklists belong on the article of the album, not under the artist. See both Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines and MOS:DISCOGRAPHY.
5. Don't overload the article with images. See Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images
6. Too many WP:REDLINKs.
7. The overall tone of the article resembled advertising rather than encyclopedic content. See WP:NOTPROMOTION, also see WP:PEACOCK and WP:NAMEDROP.
8. I have no personal involvement or knowledge of the artist. Often that is a good thing as it allows for a neutral point of view, one not clouded by fandom or hatred.

The large culling that was performed was done to improve the article and have it fall within the respective guidelines and policies as listed above. The article was more What Wikipedia is not than what it is.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Loreindrew, Since you've improved the article what else needs to be done to remove the tags? I initiated the article because I wanted to write one; I do not think I have a conflict of interest that could prevent me from writing the article. I am simply a photographer and have no personal relationship with the artist. thank you for your assistance. Stefanianj 12:33,22 December 2016(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanianj (talk • contribs)

Out of 342 edits to the article, you have made 259 (or 75.7%) of them. It may be a simple case of advocacy, but seeing the long term connection between the subject and you (photographic claims ranging from 1995 to 2014), it seems there is a more formal relationship in place.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Loriendrew, I am the main writer and I understand your concern; regarding the photographs I personally took those on the movies set in Italy, the country where I reside and work. The music photographs were given to me from the artist's management after I requested them. They provided images that were not copyrighted and did not provide the photographer so I loaded them with their permission as my own. I did not know how else to do it. There is not a formal relationship between me and the artist beside that I have met him on a few movie sets in Italy. Regards,Stefanianj (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi loriendrew, Please help me address the issues with this article; I am a newbie but I aim to do a good job. I am not in a formal relationship with the artist. what do I need to do to improve it. I'd like to contribute to other articles as well. Thanks so much. Stefanianj 13:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing preventing you from editing that article nor of any other article. Just use caution and follow the general editing guidelines as listed above. Just use caution on editing articles in which you might have a personal connection.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

New Wikiproject!

Hail and well met! I am dropping you a quick note because I have created a new Wikiproject - WikiProject Green Party to help expand and improve on the vast number of Green Party articles on Wikipedia! I hope you will consider joining so we can collaborate together instead of disagreeing. Have a great day! Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Referendum

I vant to created new page Albanian Referendum for political and teritorial autonomy in Macedonia maintained 11 and 12 january 1992 ILIRIDAproud (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

That is fine, but before you start linking it to other articles you need to write the article first.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieve and send text

Please send the text that was deleted from ¨Cat Ball¨ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lach05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lach05 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing has been deleted, the article was redirected to an existing article. The original version can be found in the "View history" tab of the Cat Ball article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Billy Crystal

Just accept it the way it is, it's not that big of a deal to everyone online. But to u it is, no offense by the way. I was the original person that made it from "{{Infobox comedian" to "{{Infobox person" in the past. As of then, I didn't like the way it looked when I made it like that before. And as of now I was changing it back to it's original Infobox setting that was accepted before in the past. So I'm ask kindly, please just accepted it the way it is please. I'm not trying to give u trouble, I was just explaining how it was before. 2600:1000:B00C:A259:A56C:E45E:4A7D:BD5D (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

if you revert it back one more time!, I will report you for vandalism! 2600:1000:B076:6A87:C9A8:67ED:39AC:FE10 (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Why'd you remove my edit on the 1997 page?

I tried to fix the Date unknown thing at the bottom of the page. Fleenstones (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) @Fleenstones: The cited source only says "in October 1997"; why did you select the 24th? Wikipedia cannot make assertions without reliable sources for verification. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

2001 Birth images

When will images on births section on 2001 be allowed? --107.77.208.83 (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Images should be contained within a section without pushing into another. Also make sure the images chosen are of such quality where the person can be clearly identified.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Loriendrew,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 822 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Producer of the year Grammy

Hi! Sorry but 21 won 7 Grammy!! Paul Hepworth wins for producer for album of the Year e producer non classical !! And 25 also!! I don't understand why You don't do this: change the Numbers of the most honored albums !! Norah, U2, Amy , Dixie and more have one more Grammy for this award!!: Producer of the Year NonClassical!!! So hear me please.. bye bye and thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tocco'78 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that would be introducing factual errors. As stated on your talk page, the Producer of the Year award is not for albums/songs/track, but is an award given for overall production. Record/Album of the year are given to producers for their work on that entity and are included.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Loriendrew,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 822 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

EPs vs LPs

Hello!

I see you reverted my edits on The Avett Brothers about their discography, specifically removing their two Gleam albums as they are EPs. Is there an agreement amongst contributors of what is an EP vs what is an LP album? I searched several portals and talk pages but couldn't find anything. Even the article page Extended play#Definition offers no clear definition.

If not, where would you recommend that we begin this conversation with the larger community? — Trevor Bolliger (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The guideline used was from Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines#Discography section.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I see, thank you. I have no problems with excluding EPs from the list — it makes sense to me. My question is about the differentiation between an EP and an LP — is it album length? song count? publisher classification? --Trevor Bolliger (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

My likely definition would come from reliable sourcing. If an artist and publisher says it is an EP, then that is how it should be considered. Highly reliable music sites, such as Allmusic or.. actually, look at the reviews of The Second Gleam. Within the reviews they call it an EP. There can be other signs, such as cost (Gleam is underpriced compared to albums) but that would be original research/ideas.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much! --Trevor Bolliger (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You should know what you edit as far as Irondale HS

keep reverting the irondale notable alumni page. If you went there you'd know that notable includes not living at home at the age of 30. I wasn't promoting anything I was giving a source to indicate being notable. For more information go to mylbertlea.com and search Paul Shea. Or myuscounty.com no promotion just facts. 96.42.234.147 (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC) 96.42.234.147 (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:ALUMNI on the criterion for inclusion. Basically, a person should have an article on Wikipedia to be listed.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Prince Daniel Vladimirovich

Hi, I see that you keep sending a request for deleting the page Daniel Vladimirovich, due to not having enough sources. I have to advice you to take a look at the pages of the other survivors of the romove family, and their resources like prince Andrew Romanov is a very good example. These people are notable but because of the conditions and exile there are not a lot of news and articles on them. So I think we should keep their name and legacy alive. Russian aid (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Daniel Vladimirovich.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Iceberg Vodka

Hi there!

I have an image I'd like to add to the Iceberg Vodka page, but i'm not a "confirmed" or "auto-confirmed" user. How should I proceed to add the image?

Thanks in advance!!

-Nathan aka "Bubblesses" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesses (talk • contribs) 06:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Uploading images.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Scotty McCreery

Hi. The Inspiration Country Award nominations he was nominated for was removed due to "unsourced, non-notable awards/nominations." I'm seeing these awards included on other artists Wiki pages such as Carrie Underwood, Justin Moore, Joey + Rory, etc. It seems to be a notable award. As long as I find sources, can I add these nominations back on the page? Thank you in advance. Ptebwwong (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Normally items added to award/accolade lists/tables should be notable, in that they are significant enough to have an article here on Wiki (see Write the article first.) While especially true for stand-alone lists, embedded lists should not be an an indiscriminate collection of information. Writing it in the prose (the verbal part of an article), perhaps in the career timeline, would be a better place for such items.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Loriendrew,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 822 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Miscategorizations by IP hopper

A few months ago at Lil McClintock you reverted the edits of an IP miscategorizing the article, among others. Most recently, I have been having similar issues with what appears to be the same individual here, on top of other older encounters. By chance, do you know if this is a LTA case or a well-known sockpuppeteer? TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not an official LTA, as in there being any documentation or report. This one is a wireless IP, whereas a previous IP is from quite a different range, as is another, along with some slight differences in the IP.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Such a pointless, but determined, method to disrupt obscure blues and country music articles. If you want to follow up on this discussion, Binksternet and I are compiling all the related IP addresses at his talk page. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Saudi Real Estate Companion - Banned books

Thank you for you comment. The book is not banned but rather was blocked on the google play store within KSA and for KSA registered accounts. ( It is available through most other countries I have checked). I am afraid I would not be able to demonstrate this as neither publisher no google would return emails to explain this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WalidAlGhamdi (talk • contribs) 17:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It just had to be removed from that list due to not being banned by a government. Hope you can find some proper sourcing on it.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Block needed for IP vandal

I see that you reverted this IP's changes, but I note that s/he continues to do the same thing, for example, changing English to British everywhere. Probably many more of his/her edits need to be reverted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

There is not much I can do in regards to a block, that would have to go to AIV. There are a couple of IPs playing with year articles. Maybe they all need page protection.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Brighton High School Page & Reverted Edits

Hi,

I recently updated information on the Brighton High School Wikipedia page including: •Adding links to the websites of the clubs at BHS •Correcting and updating information about the BHS Morning Show, including info about new equipment, activities, etc.

Why did you revert my changes? You reverted the edits I made, leaving inaccurate information on the page. Please explain.

Thanks.

Referenced page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brighton_High_School_(Rochester,_New_York)— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:104.244.192.18 (talk • contribs)

Please read our policies on links normally to be avoided, neutral point of view and reliable sourcing.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

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

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen^328 Let's discuss it 16:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Steve Scott (performer)

I am looking at Steve Scott (performer) and I have some questions (or to be more exact someone else has some questions and I'm asking on their behalf).

(As an aside, I'm an OTRS agent, trying to clear a massive backlog. I stubbornly decided to work on the oldest tickets and keep working until I got to current day. We made a lot of progress cutting the inventory from over 700 to just under 250, but I'm stuck on a ticket relating to this article.

You may or may not know that I cannot share the contents of an OTRS email without getting permission of the person writing and I might ask for that depending on your willingness to help.

I'm writing to you for two reasons; first I saw you did a fairly major copyedit, and second, I see you added some maintenance tags. I'm not disagreeing with any of those tags.

However, it won't surprise you that maintenance tags and not viewed as positive in the person writing to us has asked what can be done to remove them. Obviously, the written like an advertisement can be cured through copyediting for which you have taken a significant step. Notability is a little trickier but arguably we could bring us to the notability noticeboard to see what those experts think. The one that troubles me is the close connection to the subject. This is bothered me before but this is the first time I've been asked to address it. In principle, what does it take to remove it? A non-satisfactory answer is that if enough time passes and enough independent people edit it, someday, some editor will conclude that the contribution of the person with a close connection is small enough that it can be removed, but that's a multiyear approach at best. This more to say on this point but not until I get clearance from the person who wrote to us.

Would you have any willingness to help address these issues? If not can you help me craft a response to the person to explain Wikipedia's view on what should be done, keeping in mind that the person writing has a conflict of interest and should not be directly editing the article?

I'll be happy to request permission from the e-mailer so that I can share the contents of the email with you, but that would only make sense if you are willing to help edit this article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (Just for my own reminder ticket:2017022310012962) --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me try to summarize:

1. My connection to the article is via reverting of edits by an LTA. I have no personal knowledge nor opinion of the subject. My edits have attempted to remain in an NPOV and based in policy and style guidelines.
2. The advertisement tag: The amount of imagery, puffery, and seemingly overcategorization made the article highly promotional in tone. This could probably be removed via the edits that have been made and further neutral edits.
3. Notability: it may barely pass WP:GNG although it does not meet the following:
   1. fails WP:MUSICBIO, not meeting most if not all points.
   2. fails WP:NACTOR, not meeting most if not all points.
4. As for COI, the tools show that a single editor (article creator) has made an overwhelming majority of edits to this article:

"Found 262 edits by Stefanianj on Steve Scott (performer) (73.18% of the total edits made to the page)"

I had a lengthy discussion with that editor, please see User talk:Loriendrew/Archive 7#re: Steve Scott article and Managing a conflict of interest prior to which I had placed a COI notice on their talk page. Additionally there were copyright issues from the person, uploading images as "own work" although they were given by the subject's management/promotion team.

Overall, the tags were placed based on wiki's policies, guidelines, and manual of style. I would have no problem with, and welcome, experienced overview of the article and associated tags. I do have an issue when the person warned of a COI removes the tag themself, or if an otherwise apparent WP:SPA were to make the edit.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I am not used to Barnstars but I realize that getting an insane number of thanks can be irritating, so I am changing (tweaking) my M.O. Yours. Quis separabit? 03:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

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

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Yoshiman6464

Hi Loriendew, I've seen you have several stars for anti-vandalism, and I was hoping you could look into this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yoshiman6464. He openly professes on his user page that he violates WP:NOR in articles of his own original research. Thank you, Dramaticmusic (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

If you have any specific concerns, please utilize the function of Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)\

Why did you undo my changes to the Penn Jillette article?

I linked several words which have Wikipedia pages devoted to them. Why did you un-link these words? It seems to me that un-linking them makes it that much harder for readers to find out more about some of those words...so what's your reasoning behind doing it? Chillowack (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Please read MOS:OVERLINK about which words should generally not be linked. Also, the link to best-selling author is actually a redirect to a list of books of which Jillette is not listed and therefore should not be used. The explanation was given in the edit summary as well.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I see your reasoning now.Chillowack (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

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

Backlog update:

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

Technology update:

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

General project update:

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

---

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

You reverted my edits on Harry Chapin page

Please undo your revert of my edits. I added something to the biography section of the page that I feel should’ve been added. I cited evidence for this edit, therefore what I said is truthful. What did you find wrong with my edit? If it is a legitimate argument then I’ll gladly fix it. But if it isn’t I’m putting my edit back. Thanks. 2600:1004:B100:92B4:388E:12A5:EF4A:4C62 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Brandon --☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)\

There is a generic format to follow which can be found at MOS:BLPLEAD. Basically, the lead is a summary, generally should not contain citations (references) as they would be in the body of the article, or contain subjective puff phrases or peacock statements. Also, as mentioned on the talk page of your other anonymous IP account, read up on edit warring.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I understand my mistake now. Thank you for pointing that out for me. I read both wiki pages that you sent about puffing. That lead me to rephrase. I put at the end of the section, "Chapin has been described by many sources as one of the most popular songwriters of the 1970s" This is a verifiable fact. And the statement in general isn't false either. Chapin was one of the most popular songwriters of the 70s. Also, the editing war was solved with an agreement.

--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Roller Hockey World Cup and Women's Roller Hockey World Cup pages

Sorry, but could you change these two page titles' to World Skate Roller Hockey World Cup and World Skate Women's Roller Hockey World Cup like you did in this FIRS Intercontinental Cup to World Skate Intercontinental Cup? I'd be grateful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.48.58 (talk • contribs)

EDIT: Actually, It would be better if you removed the World Skate part from the Intercontinental Cup title (and the Roller Hockey World Cup and Women's Roller Hockey World Cup) and just let the Roller Hockey name because I don't know if in spite o being organized by World Skate the competitons' name changed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.48.58 (talk • contribs)

Before any other renaming, find out the actual name of the tourney.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

In that case, where did you find out the Intercontinental Cup was named World Skate Intercontinental Cup? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.48.58 (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

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

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Thank you for reverting my accidental edit. All the best! Llacb47 (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)