User talk:Rentier/Archive 2

Archive 1Archive 2

Avner Halperin

Being an employee of the company I am concerned about the paid editing tag that our company's CEO has on his page. The person who created this article had already disclosed that he had done a paid editing. However, the tag was never removed from there. We also contacted help desk to fix this up. Although there was no response received. We really need to remove it. Please help us do so. Your help is greatly appreciated.--150.242.198.205 (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have replaced the undisclosed paid tag with a conflict of interest tag. It can be removed after review by any editor who is not related to the subject. If you prefer, I think we can draftify the article, so that you can resubmit it through the articles for creation process. This would temporarily remove it from the public view. Rentier (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
There appears to have been two more authors who haven't disclosed their paid contributions. Since you are an employee of the company, it shouldn't be difficult to compile a complete list and post on the article's talk page? Please continue the discussion there. Thanks, Rentier (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@@Rentier: Thank you. I really appreciate your effort. We want to inform you that everyone has declare their COI and Paid work.

Here accounts involved

  1. User:G.Isabelle : Declared
  2. User:Yinonk : Declare
  3. User:Thcadd : Accepted that he was paid

If still anyone left, please let us know. We will ask them to declare so that no guidelines should be violated. --103.195.251.10 (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Rentier: I would request you please pay attention and would appreciate your help in resolving the issue. G.Isabelle and Yinonk has clearly disclosed their paid editing as you know. User:Thcadd has also accepted that he was paid in his block request. If you have doubt you can check his talk page. About this account User:Avnerhalp29, it is user id of Avner himself, which he used to make some minor changes in the article for once or twice. Obviously, he cannot pay himself to edit his own article. But still Wikipedia policy of paid editing says so, you can consider him paid or the person with conflict of interest. But consider that it was created to correct some minor errors. Please let us know what more clarification you need. Thank you. --150.242.197.93 (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rentier: Please respond this time. Thanks --150.242.197.93 (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the template could be removed (I did remove it but was reverted) - but don't expect me to spend my volunteer time on this arguing your case. You should continue the discussion on the article's talk page. Rentier (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Rentier: for your response. All accounts associate associated with the article [[Avner Halperin[[ has disclosed their paid edits still did not receive any positive response from Doc James. Mr. Doc himself is not following Wikipedia guidelines. Once all paid accounts associated with article are disclosed, then he should remove UDP tag. It would appreciate if you can somehow help us to resolve the issue. We aren't much familiar with Wikipedia things. Please see the discussion at Talk:Avner_Halperin, I have given satisfactory answer, still no positive response i have received. Thanks --150.242.198.196 (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

The New Page Patroller's Barnstar

Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! Keep up the good work! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, I'd suggest trying out the new Rater tool which makes adding WikiProjects to new articles a breeze. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Joseph Monfort

Hi Rentier, There is no page on Joseph Montfort, so i thought i would add to Wikipedia. Only the last paragraph on his death was taken from another website, apologies i have now taken this out. The other text is purely by myself after discussing the sitter with a Masonic Scholar called Ric Berman who helped me with new information. The painting of Montfort belongs to me --Kerkyra22 (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerkyra22 (talk • contribs)

Hi Kerkyra22, thank you for your contribution. I see you have already filed an OTRS ticket to verify the permissions, so you are on the right track. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Rentier (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Halo Records

I am uncertain whether I should be mentioning this here or on the Halo Records talk page. I have added references, while at the same time acknowledging that the label is a modest music label in England. It has nonetheless been in existence for nearly twenty years, which would make it one of the longer-running independent labels. Hoping there is enough to keep the page.

Dreadarthur (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

I’d like to thank you for reviewing some articles I’d written. Failosopher (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
You are very welcome. Thank you for your contributions. Rentier (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Season's Greetings

Hello Rentier: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
Abishe (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I wish you a Merry Christmas and for the upcoming year 2018. Thanks. Abishe (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

About Silvia Șerbescu

Dear Rentier,

I notice you added a tag mentioning a major contributor has a close connection to the subject. You are probably referring to her daughter, Liana Șerbescu. I agree this requires an explanation. I had introduced the explanation on the Talk page of the article. On April 30, 2017, I introduced some links, using her computer. I did this without realizing this would induce the impression that she was doing the work. As soon as I noticed my mistake, I commented on it on the talk page, hoping that people taking care of maintenance would notice the remark. Liana Șerbescu is not a contributor.

Maybe I should have done something more explicit. I don't know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia yet. Maybe you can give me some advice to present things in such a way that this will not be a problem in the future?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Jpkent (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I have replied on the article's talk page. Rentier (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Need your advice on the article

Dear Rentier. Merry Christmas to you and Happy New Year. And may the Force also be with you :) I need your advice on the new article that I've started. Please tell how I should proceed with my draft Eric Schulz? This is not a paid entry. I was so impressed by his book "Marketing Game" that decided to make an article about the author. I contacted him for some details at his university email and he answered my questions. Today he also edited the draft from newly created account. This is clearly a "no go". How do you see it moving forward? Should there some notifications added to the talk page or draft? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bbarmadillo: Their edits weren't significant, so there is not much to be done. You can submit the draft as you would normally. You could put the Template:Connected_contributor on the article's talk page and advise the subject to not edit the article directly. As you can probably appreciate, the optics of you working on this article while in contact with the subject are bad. It looks like a paid job, even if it isn't one. Also, the subject's notability is borderline at best. Rentier (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Will do this. I think he is notable. He wrote two books on marketing. By the way, I've read his book in Russian first, very old one, been given to me by a friend of mine. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I will ask for your advice again when finished with the draft if you don't mind. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Royal Opera House, Covent Garden

Thank you for reviewing my article. >MinorProphet (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

COI

Bruce Flatt - do you want the redirect FP'd, or do you still want to keep it as a honeypot? Up to you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I would say keep it. There are plenty of people watching that page. Rentier (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Tea and sympathy

I, too, have spent time cleaning up/sourcing/improving articles, only to have the subject or someone who loves the subject turn it into flagrant PROMO. My deepest sympathy. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
E.M.Gregory Thanks.. I don't normally clean up after paid editors - I think it does more harm than good in the long run (BOGOF). Glad, actually, to see it heading for deletion. Rentier (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
E.M.Gregory, and Rentier, see the red banner on the top pf my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

NPP filter

Hi there. I reviewed a page which was on the NPP list today which had been already accepted via AfC. It struck me that articles which had already been through AfC, which end up on the NPP list could most likely be quickly reviewed as they have already received a review by the AfC team. Is there a way to

  • Filter articles which have {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} on their talk pages?
  • Filter articles which were created through the article wizard?

Thanks in advance for your time and your contributions to the project! Edaham (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Edaham: Thanks for the suggestion - this is actually part of the new version of the tool that I have been (very slowly) developing over the past few months. The backlog may be gone by the time I finish it, but I exported the list. See below. Best, Rentier (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Rentier, I'm pinging Drewmutt as he's been making a recent effort to provide a second objective look at recent AfC accepts from a NPP standpoint, and might find this useful. Interestingly enough, a lot of his work demonstrates why I think the double review system is important. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
TonyBallioni, despite not knowing precisely your thoughts on the subject, I also think a double review system is important. The stages as I see them would basically be - 1) AfC: is it ok for the main space? 2) NPP: how can it be further improved and cross linked to relevant projects? A skeptic looking at my questions up there might be worried that I was looking for a pile of articles to just click through, however such is not the case. I still think the AfC articles can benefit from critical review, but also am interested to have the list available to NPPers as it might quickly knock a chunk out of the backlog if people, such as myself, are attracted to the idea of reviewing articles, which have already earned some form of merit via a creation process. Edaham (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Edaham and TonyBallioni about the current peer review idea. There have been some outright embarrassments coming out of AfC. For the most part we get it right, but the bad ones are usually strikingly so, and often are moved by a user who's just fed up with AfC and wants to fast-pass it to meet their client's deadline. Also, and this is just my view, NPP and AfC are of slightly different mindsets and techniques. For instance, we (usually) don't tag articles (although maybe we probably should), we simply decline them. I'm up to sending a few AfC approvals a day to AfD, today having two CSDs. All that to say, I like the system how it is, and I appreciate the NPP safety net. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • AfC was intended to be only the most preliminary of filters. It's primary use is by new editors, and at least 3/4 of the current submissions are at least somewhat promotional. The role of AfC is to remove the contributions which are unimprovable, while simultaneously helping improve the others. It's intended to pass everything for which there's a chance of an article with some rational chance of acceptance. It is only supposed to watch for the problems that would be fatal -- copyvio,advertising, hclear lack of potential notability , duplication,and so forth. It's not inteded to mark the usual problems for further editing, to make sure there are sufficient links, to add proper categories. At NPP, we try to be more complete. The hope is that if the impossible article are removed at AfC, then we will have perhaps half the cvolume at NPP that we used to have--and that seems to be about the current result.
I've tried to do both levels of screening at once, but it doesn't work well. And I haven't seen it work well for others, especially those with relatively little experience. The general level of accuracy at all WP processes mis such that we can only have it reach a satisfactory level of freedom from error by havinga multi-step process.
But we do need to indicate at NPP that an article came from AFC. The additional information is helpful. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Improvements?

Excellent insights into practices about which I fear some editors are very naïve. Hoping this turns into a proposal which I can then support. KJP1 (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

KJP1 yes, I agree. Thanks for the words of support. Rentier (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability

With this edit], I PRODed the article. the PROD was removed by the author without addressing the isues on his insistance that 'all professors ar notable'. A case for AfD? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung, I am hesitant to nominate any articles about academics, especially female ones, for deletion. They tend to be kept on the flimsiest of reasons. WP:PROF #1 tends to be interpreted so liberally that it makes the remaining eight criteria redundant. Let's see what DGG says.. Rentier (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I share your concerns. Wikipedia is supposed to have the same rules for every one so even though I am a strong, and sometimes active supporter of the 'Women in Red' project, I don't think gender can really be an argument. As you say, we need DGG to chime in here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
A woman or other member of a group discriminated against can be notable if they are the first in their field to overcome a major barrier, or in some cases to even have participated in a profession when it was in general closed to them. (I'd consider the first woman physician in the US not just notable but famous, the first woman in a particular state possibly notable. But this has to be used sparingly--the first woman surgeon, pediatrician etc. in a particular state does not necessarily warrant an article. Nor would I generally use it for anything after the early 20th century. I would use it more widely as time goes back.
As for "all professors", that has never been accepted at afd, but it is a rational basis for removing a prod, to test the individual case at AfD. . Informally, all full professors at major universities have been found notable, except where there was some special prejudice (such as scientists who also espoused some aspect of pseudoscience). I personally would expand it to Associate Professors at the most important universities, as such appointments are not made except to people expected to be experts in their field, but there is no consensus for it. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
DGG, when I create articles about Fellow of the Royal Society, who are usually at the very top of their fields, it's often difficult to locate secondary sources that contain any prose about the researcher. For subjects such as Henriette Harich-Schwarzbauer, there are no such sources. Apart from one statement ("first woman to be appointed Professor of Classical philology" at Graz) sourced to German Wikipedia and not really supported by that source, it's basically a CV based on a combination of primary sources and computer-generated databases. I am undecided whether such articles are a net benefit for the encyclopedia (they contain very little knowledge, are almost never read, increase maintenance burden, are a magnet for COI editors), but I can't help thinking that PROF #1 demands stronger evidence of significance than the number of library holdings. However, with WP:NFOOTY being what it is, I don't think the notability standards for academics are among Wikipedia's top problems. Rentier (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
That's the reason for the WP:PROF criterion 3, to make sure such articles were never deleted. More generally , an official CV + citation or worldcat records is enough to show being recognized as an authority. That's why we have WP:PROF in the first place, to indicate that secondary sources aren't necessary. Back in 2006/7 when I came here, WP:PROF was just beginning to be accepted. For those who didn't , we argued that GScholar and WorldCat were reliable secondary sources, and the discussion of a scholars articles by other scholars in the articles that cited them were substantial independent sources. (I tried to make it clear that if we really carried that standard as far as made sense, we could show that anyone who had published an academic book that got reviewed of even a few papers that got discussed would be notable, and this would include even most assistant professors. I like to think that the great inclusivity that would be permitted by taking WP:GNG at its face value would give results so distant from the general view of notability, led people to accept that WP:PROF was preferable. (and I should mention that in the first few years there was a very strong anti-establisment bias at WP, and that included the academic establishment. All my life had been devoted to supporting as a librarian the traditional academic establishment, and I took that as a challenge. (It's not the whole world, to be sure, but I still think that it--along with the creative arts--is the most important part of it).
The deWP, in contrast, had no anti-academic bias. It accepted the traditional Germanic view that showing someone was an accepted academic authority was the highest possible praise. It therefore made no particular effort beyond showing that one had a senior academic position, and nobody there has ever challenged it. This did indeed some difficulties in moving their articles to enWP, and I normally try to expand them a little so they appear more in line with our usual standards.
In determining the importance of someone;s academic work, the extent to which it is read and used is relevant. Reviews tend to be rather formalized, and in the humanities basically show competence, but not anything really special.What in the US at present does show something special is the mere fact that the book was accepted by an academic publisher. Their standards of review are normally far higher than journal articles--which is rational, considering the costs of production. What library holdings show is the general interest in the work. Academic libraries buy books primarily by faculty recommendations--in the best funded libraries, such as the one I was associated with (Princeton) , we never waited for actual recommendations, but bought any serious academic book within the general fields of interests of the university, with the goal of ensuring it would be on the shelves before any of the faculty came to request it. The really best standard for library holdings, which I have used is esoteric fields collected by few libraries, is to show that the book is the most widely held one on the topic--that;s an excellent indication of being an authority.
The reason this works, is that the academic profession has its own standards of importance, and the way we judge it is designed to match theirs. They go by publications, taking account carefully of where they are published.
In some fields, even fields I have no personal interest in at all, thee are similar standards. Athletes are judged by international competitions, popular musicians by charting, politicians by being elected. Even fields for which I have utter contempt, if they have consistent internal standards, I think it is reasonable to accept them. The only way of judging that makes no sense at all is the GNG, which is entirely an artificial function of public relations activity, and not just irrelevant to encyclopedic standards, but directly opposed to them. DGG ( talk ) 09:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts and the broader context. That's a lot for me to reflect on. Rentier (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

About Accelo

Hi Rentier,

I saw that the article for Accelo had been deleted and your message left on my page concerning a COI in the creation of the page. I am not under the payroll of Accelo and I have not been advised by the business to create this page. I have used Accelo at a previous company to manage my work and decided that it would be a fun project to create a page for the business. I'm rather obsessive so any deletions that were made I attempted to counter. I'm keen on editing more pages and hopefully creating more in the future although I'd appreciate advice on how this page may be approved upon so that it does not face another deletion.

Best,

Indycould (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Indycould, it seems the Accelo lacks notability and cannot have an article at this time. If you disagree, the sure way to demonstrate notability is to find multiple high-quality sources that discuss the company in some depth and are independent from it and from each other. Rentier (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I'll see if I can rewrite the article only using independent and more credible sources. Would it be alright if I were to ask you to look over the next draft once completed? Indycould (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Indycould Sure, feel free to. You might want to discuss the sources first, because if the sources are not acceptable, writing the article is going to be a futile task. Rentier (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to link a few here? Indycould (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Indycould, yes, not a problem. Rentier (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Alright here are a few sources that would work well for an article on Accelo. Keen to hear your thoughts on the credibility of these.
*http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/4043663/wollongong-cbds-hidden-slice-of-silicon-valley/
*http://goingconcern.com/adapting-agile-project-management-your-accounting-firm/
*https://www.denverpost.com/2018/01/18/accelo-denver-jobs/
*https://smallbiztrends.com/2016/06/online-bill-generator.html
*https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/09/22/1131535/0/en/Accelo-Becomes-a-HubSpot-Connect-Program-Partner-Enabling-Integrated-Marketing-and-Service-Operations-Automation.html
Indycould (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Indycould: unfortunately, I don't think it would work. Here's my assessment of the sources according to my understanding of the current standards:

  • illawarramercury - contributes little to notability (local news section of a local newspaper)
  • goingconcern - no depth, not reliable, so doesn't contribute to notability (looks like a "contributor network" without editorial control)
  • denverpost.com - this is the strongest source of those you listed, but still not optimal (local scope)
  • smallbiztrends.com - no depth, contributes virtually nothing to notability (inclusions in lists are usually given no weight)
  • globenewswire - not independent, so doesn't contribute to notability (press release)

Based on my experience with the deletion process, I believe that an article based on those sources would not survive an articles for deletion discussion. There are no absolutes on Wikipedia, but historically, my vote has matched the consensus 94.2% of the time. Rentier (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
For completing over 100 reviews during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive please accept this Special Edition Barnstar. Thank you for helping out at New Page Patrol! There is still work to do to meet our long term goals, so I hope you will continue your great work. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Liz MacDonald

Hello! I don't understand why you're not happy with Liz MacDonald's page. She is notable enough and has received $1,000,000 funding to run a large scale citizen science project. Not many people have that. Jesswade88 (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)§

@Jesswade88: Notability aside, I'm outraged at the way you are building articles based on primary sources. For example, I have no idea how you get from "My mentor convinced me to take just one more physics class and then one more, and here I am." to "Her mentor, Ruth Skoug, encouraged her to remain in research". Rentier (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Rentier: No reason to be "outraged". Also, this is one article - I rarely cite interviews. Pretty sure " I dreaded physics class. But I had a fabulous mentor (Ruth Skoug, a scientist now at Los Alamos National Laboratory) who studied auroras and opened my eyes to research. Auroras were beautiful and complex, and the research about them was tangible and had practical applications. I was drawn to auroras for all of these reasons. My mentor convinced me to take just one more physics class and then one more, and here I am." could be summarised in "Her mentor, Ruth Skoug, encouraged her to remain in research", but if that was the sentence that made you query notability, feel free to remove it. Jesswade88 (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Lidov-Kozai

I am happy both with Kozai-Lidov (because this is an alphabetic order) and Lidov-Kozai (because this is fair). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slow1 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Slow1: Okay, I will move the article to "Kozai-Lidov mechanism". Would you be interested in collaborating on the article's scientific content? Rentier (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Rentier, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

  • Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, 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.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

  • While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

NPR Silver Award

The New Page Reviewer's Silver Award

For over 2000 new page reviews in the last year, thank you very much for your help at New Pages Patrol! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arndt von Haeseler has been accepted

Arndt von Haeseler, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

» Shadowowl | talk 13:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Topic classification in NPP Browser

Hi Rentier -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm a new product manager at WMF. I'm currently working on a potential improvement to the Articles for Creation (AfC) process that I posted about here, and that's being discussed on the talk page.

One of the leading ideas for improvement is to help AfC reviewers with expertise in a given topic to find drafts in that topic, since those reviewers will be able to more accurately and quickly establish notability. Some NPP reviewers in the conversation have pointed out your useful NPP Browser tool, which appears to classify articles into topics. I would love to hear more about the tool, but I do have one main question. How does your tool do that? Does it use categories that have been applied to the article? Or WikiProjects? I wasn't able to find documentation n the tool, but if that exists, I'm happy to read it. Thank you, and please feel free to join the conversation on that talk page. As someone who has helped NPP reviewers prioritize their work, I'm sure we could use your input on doing something similar for AfC.

-- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@MMiller (WMF): Thanks for reaching out. I have replied on the project talk page. Rentier (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Something like this or this might be useful. The MediaWiki API isn't that nice when it comes to spitting out all the metadata made available by PageTriage, you will have to make multiple queries. MER-C 15:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing pages

Hi Rentier, Thanks for the fast reply, I'll be writing the Kozai mechanism page soon. I have a question using images and copyrights. I guess I can use images I made myself. What about images that appear in published papers (including paper I've co-authored)? Which kind of permissions required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugeneg88 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Eugeneg88: The best place to upload images is Wikimedia Commons. The images you made yourself are of course fine, assuming that you haven't transferred the copyright to, for example, a journal. For images that you do not own the copyright to, it would be necessary for the copyright holder to give his consent via email to appropriate channels. I think that generally, to reuse an image from a published paper, you would have to get the journal to email the permission to Wikimedia. Rentier (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Rentier, 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: Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 100 review coin, 250 review coin, 500 review coin, 1000 review certificate.
  • Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

How can the Interaction Timeline be useful in reporting to noticeboards?

Hi Rentier,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team built the Interaction Timeline to make it easier to understand how two people interact and converse across multiple pages on a wiki. The tool shows a chronological list of edits made by two users, only on pages where they have both made edits within the provided time range. Our goals are to assist users to make well informed decisions in incidents of user misconduct and to keep on-wiki discussions civil and focused on evidence.

We're looking to add a feature to the Interaction Timeline that makes it easy to post statistics and information to an on-wiki discussion about user misconduct. We're discussing possible wikitext output on the project talk page, and we invite you to participate! Thank you, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hello Rentier, 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.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

URL for NPP browser

Hello, is it possible to get unique URL for search query on NPP browser (q=india, q=kolkata) etc, so that I can regularly check those from my toolbox/todo list? --Titodutta (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Titodutta: Added. You can now do, for example, https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/?q=india Rentier (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Rentier, 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
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.
Other
Moving to Draft and Page Mover
  • 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:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
  • User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
  • 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).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Luboš Motl for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Luboš Motl 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/Luboš Motl (4th nomination) 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. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

COI editing advice

Hi. I kindly ask you for your expert advice on Ken Banks article. I asked for several changes to it using COI request form and got a very strange reply. There is a Cambridge Judge Business School website that says “Ken Banks, who was appointed Visiting Fellow in May 2018, is a British award-winning social entrepreneur, mobile technology and global development expert with an undergraduate major in Social Anthropology with Development Studies”. When I asked to add this fact to the article, I got a the reply from the reviewing editor who said that “the provided reference does not state that the subject was appointed Visiting Fellow of the Cambridge Judge Business School per se”. What is wrong with the reference provided? It is the official website of a business school that states that Ken Banks is their Visiting Fellow. I am really puzzled. Please share your thoughts. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Rfassbind. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, (468861) 2013 LU28, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Rfassbind – talk 19:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Rentier, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist 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.
New scripts

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Rentier,

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.
With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Rentier. 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)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Rentier,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, 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.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders 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 3 December 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-minute video 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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

NPP by author

Hey Rentier,

Is User:Rentier/NPP/Unreviewed articles by user up to date? I'm just wondering because it was very helpful before. Is it Quarry-generated?

Many thanks,

SITH (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@StraussInTheHouse: Updated! You can always fetch an up-to-date version from https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/npp-by-user.php Best, Rentier (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

NPP Browser

This may not be possible, but the NPP Browser would be enormously more useful if it had popups for the articles. Otherwise there's no real basis for knowing which ones in a category to look at. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: It may be possible. Just to clarify, do you mean popups on, for example, this page: http://139.162.191.26/NPP/public/index.php?by=group&name=Software or somewhere else? Rentier (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Rentier,

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)

NPP Browser

Good morning - just wanted to check on the state and future of the NPP Browser. I gather that the current unavailability is due to the Trusty shutdow [1]? (not that that conveys a lot of information to me :p) I was just wondering what the situation is going to be like in the near future - has migrated & will be back up, is supposed to function right now but got bollocksed, or some period of unavailability? Cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Rentier,

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)

NPP Browser tool

Hello, NPP browser tool is not working anymore. What happened? Whenever I try to visit this link a 503 service unavailable response shows up. Please fix it. Thanks in advance. Masum Reza📞 05:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Rentier,

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)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Rentier,

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)

NPP browser

Hi Rentier, I frequently use your NPP browser and it's an extremely helpful tool. I was just wondering, does it have the option to sort pages by date created alongside the keyword? I can't spot it, was just wondering if I was overlooking something obvious, cheers. Kosack (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Rentier,

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) 00:05, 19 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)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Rentier,

Source Guide Discussion

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
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)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Rentier,

Your help can make a difference

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.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Rentier,

A chart of the 2020 New Page Patrol Queue

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 DannyS712 bot III (talk) 67,552 Patrol Page Curation
2 Rosguill (talk) 63,821 Patrol Page Curation
3 John B123 (talk) 21,697 Patrol Page Curation
4 Onel5969 (talk) 19,879 Patrol Page Curation
5 JTtheOG (talk) 12,901 Patrol Page Curation
6 Mcampany (talk) 9,103 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 6,401 Patrol Page Curation
8 Mccapra (talk) 4,918 Patrol Page Curation
9 Hughesdarren (talk) 4,520 Patrol Page Curation
10 Utopes (talk) 3,958 Patrol Page Curation
Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Rentier,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
  • On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Adoption request for tool nppbrowser

Hi Rentier, as you are no longer active among Wikimedia Projects, I would like to adopt your tool called nppbrowser, as it is currently broken. Thanks! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)