User talk:PCN02WPS/Archive 2

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, PCN02WPS. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

United States presidential election articles

Hi, thanks for writing these articles! Just to warn you in case you didn't know, while I understand that the new format of articles of this type is "YYYY United States presidential election in [state]", a lot of links were set up in the past on the assumption that an article would be created in future in the old format. So without a redirect page, those links will stay red even though there's an article on the topic. I've been setting up relevant redirects but just warning you in case I've missed any! Blythwood (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Blythwood: If you're referring to the links in the navboxes, normally I just change them as I create them, though I may miss a few. I'll pay close attention to change those, or I can just create the "United States presidential election in [state], YYYY" redirects at the same time I create the properly named articles if that would work better. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure. I wondered about that but I thought it was quickest to create redirects because there seem to be quite a lot of these redlinks. For instance for the Oregon 1936 article there's four links to the old-format article title, one from quite an obscure-looking article that might easily get missed (List of third party performances in United States presidential elections). And of course someone who doesn't know or forgot about the new format could easily create another link to an old-format title at some point in future. Blythwood (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@Blythwood: I think it's easiest for me to create the old-style redirects at the same time that I create the new-style pages. That way, the links in the massive state-by-state results tables (1936 United States presidential election#Results by state, for example) won't stay red; otherwise they'd have to be changed by hand and that would take way too much time and effort to do. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@Blythwood: Though I will also thank you for bringing this to my attention, and for all the redirects you've already made - I'm sure it's rather tedious work that's not extremely fun to do, so thank you for being the one to do it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
No worries. Incidentally, I was just looking at related pages-if/when you get onto 1932, someone's categorised Wikimedia Commons images on that election by state, so there's a lot of categories e.g. here and here that could be linked to articles. Blythwood (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Flag of the City of Clinton, South Carolina.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Flag of the City of Clinton, South Carolina.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Alabama–Clemson football rivalry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alabama–Clemson football rivalry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabama–Clemson football rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Cobyan02069 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

An invitation to discussion

I kindly invite you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#The Bolding issue to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2019 Arlington mayoral election

Notice

The article 2019 Arlington mayoral election has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Suburban mayoral elections are unlikely to pass GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SounderBruce 05:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of 2019 Arlington mayoral election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 Arlington mayoral election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Arlington mayoral election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. SounderBruce 01:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for 2019 College Football Playoff National Championship

On 10 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2019 College Football Playoff National Championship, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alabama's 28-point loss against Clemson in the 2019 College Football Playoff National Championship was their worst-ever defeat under head coach Nick Saban? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2019 College Football Playoff National Championship. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2019 College Football Playoff National Championship), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, can you check if my page has been reviewed?

Hello, I created the page Kharagpur Raj and I was wondering if you could take the time to review it? I would appreciate it. Thank you.BanaBahadir (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@BanaBahadir: Hi, and thank you for your article. While I have applied for New Page Patrol, I have not been granted that right yet, so as of now I am unable to review pages. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting my conversion therapy edit

I need help, as the user JzG keeps erasing it.2601:447:4101:5780:25D8:1668:B28D:F04D (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@2601:447:4101:5780:25D8:1668:B28D:F04D: I am not going to become further involved in the conflict so as to avoid getting involved in an WP:EDITWAR. JzG does bring up a good point, however: you need to try to find a secondary source to support your claims (WP:PRIMARY) and make sure they are presented without any bias (WP:NPOV). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Then why did you accept it? Here is at least another source noting it among other UK bills.[1].2601:447:4101:5780:25D8:1668:B28D:F04D (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought you had also accepted directly from the UK Parliament too.[2]

@2601:447:4101:5780:25D8:1668:B28D:F04D: I accepted it because I saw it listed at Special:PendingChanges and I assumed the edit was in good faith. I was unaware that there was an edit war going on between you and JzG. I do not have any knowledge regarding the ins-and-outs of the particular bill itself, so that is between you and JzG. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
It should be reverted, there is ongoing discussion on Talk and the edit is not compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@JzG: As someone wishing to remain neutral, I am unfamiliar with the ins-and-outs of the topic and the structure of British government and legislation. Would this be considered a reliable secondary source in your eyes? In other words, what about the edit does not satisfy the NPOV, V, and RS? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Just read on the article's talk page where you said that this was not reliable. Above question has been marked out. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@PCN02WPS: One of my fellow-admins has rolled back and fully protected the article, so we're all good. No criticism attaches to you. Our IP friend is being tiresome, but will hopefully find out how all this works on the Talk page. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@JzG: sounds good, thank you for all your help! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

List of Gangs

How can I get my list added to namespace?

List of Gangs in the Cayman Islands (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@List of Gangs in the Cayman Islands: Hi, and thank you for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Before editing any further, please make sure you know the difference between an article and a user page; the page you added to List of gangs was your user page (it contained one link, which was to another user page (User:Watercourse Clique)). Please make sure that you are not creating accounts and userpages rather than articles. Based on the fact that both User:List of Gangs in the Cayman Islands and User:Watercourse Clique were created today and have a combined six edits, I am going to go out on a limb and say that you were the creator of both pages. If you have any questions as to how to create and improve mainspace articles, please do not hesitate to message me further. Thanks, PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I got my team to do the work

66.97.20.206 (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Wish

Hello. Help expand for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. Uuithy (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Uuithy: Hi, is there anything in specific you need help improving? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

No title

I've been asked by PCN02WPS to leave message on this page about sourcing for the edit that I did on the Jesse Owens page. Please do read this carefully--it's important. The statement is circulating widely that Roosevelt invited the 1936 Olympic team to the White House but Owens and other black athletes were not invited. As I believe I indicated in the edit, I did a Proquest newspaper search--a superb database including not only major mainstream newspapers but leading black ones--for the whole period of 1936 after the team returned. There was no indication that any of them had ever visited the White House. The story is made up. I read many stories about what Owens was doing this fall and some explicit discussion of his claim that FDR never sent him a telegram, but there was nothing in any story about an event at the White House. I don't know how to "source" a non-event, although I believe I did refer to the Proquest source in my edit. We could refer readers to the blog post I did myself on the subject if you want. Please share your reaction to this in any event. The false story is circulating by the tens of thousands because of Black History Month--that's how I saw it--and I would really like to knock it down. Thanks.

David Kaiser KaiserD2 (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@KaiserD2: Hi, maybe I should have been more clear in the message I left on your user page. I found no problem with your edit to the Jesse Owens article except that it fails WP:V as it was not sourced. The edit will more than likely be approved if you include with it a reliable source (WP:RS); a self-published blog would not qualify as such. Rather, a secondary source (such as one of the aforementioned newspapers that you searched through, if they mention that none of the team was invited) would be perfect as a reliable, neutral (WP:NPOV), secondary source. On a separate note, please put all new messages at the bottom of my talk page (you can reply to me right under this message). Thanks, PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@KaiserD2: For additional information on self-published sourcing, please see WP:SPS and WP:RSSELF. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi PCN02WPS. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, so do check back at WP:PERM/NPR in case this concerns your application. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Atlantic306. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, UdayShankar, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Atlantic306 (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: Thanks for the heads-up, still getting used to the page curation toolbar. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Rivalries results table settings

I checked that discussion page a little bit and didn't see related discussion. Did you talk with other users about this? 七战功成 01:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@七战功成: here's the link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 21; see the "Rivalry results table settings" header listed at No. 39 in the table of contents. As you'll see in the discussion, I was against universal adoption of the extended format but I support for instances where both teams are often ranked. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the argument there is not quite well-reasoned, Alabama and Clemson were not ranked quite often when they played until recently. That style actually makes the content looks a little copious. 七战功成 03:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@七战功成: IMO, because the two teams have both been ranked in each of their last five meetings, the series qualifies for an expanded table. I don't want this to become a WP:EDITWAR, so I propose we compromise and open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football if necessary. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@七战功成: Can you stop reverting so we can talk about this please? Should I ask for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I opened the discussion in there and notified you, you didn't know? 七战功成 00:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@七战功成: Didn't show up in my notifications nor my watchlist. Weird. My apologies, I've responded. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

seriously?

Did you not read the edit summary when I created the page Political positions of Amy Klobuchar? it is a copy paste. it was spunoff from the article. see the talk page. Hydromania (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hydromania: Apologies, oversight on my part. Thanks for your work. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
No worries. WP:SLOWDOWN only covers stress, not going too fast :) Hydromania (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Hydromania: I'll give it a read regardless. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello PCN02WPS,

News
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).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • 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.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

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.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Found Userboxes for You

This user is interested in flags and emblems.
Editing Wikipedia is something this user does as a hobby.



2019 AAF standings

Hi - I'll update SOS & SOV after the Birmingham game wraps up; I was out yesterday and missed the games. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dmoore5556: no problem, I made myself a spreadsheet and did SOS/SOV for yesterday's games, and I'll be here to do them should you be unable in the future. Thanks for your help. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

No title

Hello, I'm PCN02WPS. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2019 AAF season, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC) Sources were provided https://aaf.com/news/apollos-beat-express-in-wild-game-34-31-clinch-home Someone else does not know what they are doing and changed my edit and removed my comment and sourcing. Please in the future check the facts before making assumptions about what I have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonash1974 (talk • contribs)

@Dragonash1974: This comment does not make much sense, care to clarify what your concern is? Additionally, please sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your messages. Thanks, PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Accepting pending changes...

....just a heads-up: if you accept changes to date of the year pages, please keep in mind that all additions have to be reliably sourced in the linked article ("each addition now requires a direct citation from a reliable source on this page supporting it. Simply providing a wikilink is not sufficient and additions without direct sources will be removed"). Lectonar (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Lectonar: Does the citation need to be on the date of the year page (November 12) or just on the subject's page (Andrzej Majewski)? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Both would be ok, but sourcing in the article would be better imho. Explanations pop up when you try to edit a date of the year page Lectonar (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I just reverted one on April 21 (diff). Thanks for the heads up! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You deserve a brownie!

Get well soon, PCN! Mpprogram6771 (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mpprogram6771: Thank you! If you have any questions regarding Wikipedia, I'd be glad to help. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

St Burgundofara

you deleted my addition of St Burgundofara to the Holidays and Observances section of Apr. 3. The page for Burgundofara clearly states she is celebrated on April 3. What other "source" do you need? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Richardson mcphillips: Hi, the only reason I reverted your edit was because I was following the guidelines that are listed at the top of the edit window after you click "edit" on that page (or, for that matter, any "day of the year page"); one such guideline reads as follows: Each addition now requires a direct citation from a reliable source on this page supporting it. Simply providing a wikilink is not sufficient and additions without direct sources will be removed. Per an above conversation with another user (User talk:PCN02WPS#Accepting pending changes...), all that is needed is a reliable source on the target page (in this case, Burgundofara) supporting the date, rather than just a wikilink to Burgundofara on the April 3 article. If you need any assistance, don't hesitate to leave a message here. Thanks for your contributions! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

this is not clear to me. Every entry in Holidays and Observances is a wikilink to an article that contains the date. I can't figure out how the policy you mention is evidently followed in every other case. What does "a direct citation from a reliable source on this page supporting it" mean? What is "this page"? the edit page? Could you give an example? The linked article on 'reliable source' is about sources used in writing Wiki articles, but this policy seems to be about something else, since the Wiki article does not seem adequate.Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC) ps I read the above conversation, and it seems to me from that, that as long as the original article is correctly-sourced, that is fine.Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Richardson mcphillips: I think this policy was set forth to be a from this point forward type thing; all you need to do to add it to the list is find a reliable source for the date and add it to the Burgundofara page; at that point it will be supported by a reliable source and will be fit for addition to the April 3 article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added a reference on the Burgundofara page for the date. Is that adequate? Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Richardson mcphillips: It appears so, and I have added another just in case. Thanks for your cooperation! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. It seems to me that the statement on the top of the "edit" page is unclear by itself.Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2019 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship Game

On 9 April 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship Game, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

2019 NCAA Men's National Collegiate Volleyball Tournament moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 2019 NCAA Men's National Collegiate Volleyball Tournament, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page or move it manually remebering to remove the draft template from the article when you do this. SSSB (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jake Bailey (American football)

Notice

The article Jake Bailey (American football) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Tagishsimon (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello PCN02WPS,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

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.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

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.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing 2019 Stetson Hatters football team, PCN02WPS.

Redalert2fan has gone over this page again and marked it as unpatrolled. Their note is:

There are no references/sources present on the page

Please contact Redalert2fan for any further query. Thanks.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Redalert2fan (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (2019 Stetson Hatters football team) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating 2019 Stetson Hatters football team.

User:Redalert2fan while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Re-reviewed, thanks for adding references

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Redalert2fan}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Redalert2fan (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Don Barnes (judge)

Hi, I have just tried Category: Oklahoma Supreme Court justices on Wikipedia. It works and already has listings for 43 people. Please correct this, as you deleted it on your last edit. Thanks, Bruin2 (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bruin2: Hi, the category you added was Category:Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices, which is redlinked because the "J" in "Justices" was capitalized. I will add Category:Oklahoma Supreme Court justices to the page. Thanks for letting me know. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 11:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Path slopu: Thank you so much! I appreciate it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 11:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

FIBA

Thanks for adding results and referees. Two small things: Results and teams on the main article are not needed to be bolded and for the referees, i added the correct names with diatrics. Kante4 (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Women in sports

Hi there, PCN02WPS. I am impressed by all the articles you have created on sports people and sporting events. In July and August, WikiProject Women in Red has a strong focus on sports. It would be great if you could help to improve our coverage of sportswomen who lag far behind men on Wikipedia. Hope you can join in and help us along.--Ipigott (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello PCN02WPS,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Cal 2019 football game summaries

Hi, I have a question about the game summaries columns you added to 2019 California Golden Bears football team, what is the meaning of the color of the columns - blue/gold? Thank you Rybkovich (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Rybkovich: The team's primary color (in Cal's case, blue) is used for home games and the secondary color (gold) is used for away games. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I figured it out eventually. I think it could be confusing, since there is no key/legend explaining it. I tried to come up with a good spot to put it (technically this would be good since there is a meaning to the colors) but couldn't find a good spot - easy to see and pleasing to the eye. I put an asterisk below the section heading. If you disagree, let me know and I will undue it. And will bring up the issue on the talk page. Rybkovich (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rybkovich: The game summary box color thing was something I started doing several years ago; it's just to make the page look nicer and, while I've expanded it to all of the teams in FBS and FCS (mainly because I'm the one adding the game summaries for the vast majority of teams), there's no official guidelines or anything that say that it has to be that way, so a small note seems fine if you see that fit. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Got it, thanks for all your work. Rybkovich (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello PCN02WPS,

Backlog

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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:2019 AAF season

Template:2019 AAF season has been nominated for merging with Template:AAF. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2019 AAF playoffs

Template:2019 AAF playoffs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Arizona Hotshots

Template:Arizona Hotshots has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Memphis Express

Template:Memphis Express has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Salt Lake Stallions

Template:Salt Lake Stallions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:San Antonio Commanders

Template:San Antonio Commanders has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Birmingham Iron

Template:Birmingham Iron has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:San Diego Fleet

Template:San Diego Fleet has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello PCN02WPS,

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

Getting the queue to 0

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

Coordinator

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

This month's refresher course

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

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

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

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

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

Community Wish list

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

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

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

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Evansville

That was an accidental revert, I didn't even realize I did it until right now. Sorry. Almy (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Almy: No worries! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

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.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(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.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5