User talk:Sagotreespirit/Archive 2

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Tahiti Hut

Thank you for reviewing the page Tahiti Hut. It is now subject to what is, in my opinion, an overzealous editor who has nominated both Tahiti Hut and Tequila Mockingbird (song) for deletion. This has never happened in any page I have created in over ten years. Perhaps you might confirm your review of the page? A few more citations were added. Most appreciate it.Rosedelune (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rosedelune: Looks like the article is gone. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi

Help. Help add [citation needed]. Thanks you. Fonmi3 (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fonmi3: The article is written well, but you will need to find the references yourself. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 05:28, 24 November 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:

Mz7 (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Request on 03:35:56, 27 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by TTencza


The comments left by reviewer in rejecting this submission are inaccurate. I was not paid for writing this article. I disclosed that I work for the company, but I did not receive any extra hidden payments for this submission (and I am not in PR or Marketing). All sources cited in the article were independent sources. Finally, Prospa is not a "loan shark" company. They adhere strictly to responsible loan practices. TTencza (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

TTencza (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Belt & Road Industrial and Commercial Alliance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Business association (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Sock blocked

For the record, you original suspicions about User:Jennyissac were correct, as they have been blocked as a sock account; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AuthorWiki99 for more. Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: Good work Sam. The PR nonsense in the lead section was simply too blatant. Genuine students don't list award after award when writing assignments. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Sagotreespirit, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Muboshgu (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Following up re Jodi Kovitz

A couple of things.

Firstly, thank you for editing your input. It has been helpful and appreciated. I have made the ones suggested so far. If you need more changes, please let me know.

Regarding notability and Wikipedia, I completely agree with the concept. In Jodi Kovitz' case she has been reported, interviewed and op-ed'd in the Globe and Mail (Canada's national newspaper - the Canadian Equivalent of the New York Times) and also but less so in the National Post (the Canadian equivalent of the Wall Street Journal), in Forbes Magazine Online and has been recognized as one of Canada's 25 Women of Influence in 2018 and recognized as one of WXN's (Women's Executive Network) Canada's 100 most powerful women in 2017 and again in 2019. Being one of 25 and 100 of say about 17 Million women in Canada I am hopeful passes the filter of Notability.

Thanks.

Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffkov (talk • contribs) 14:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jeffkov: Hi Jeff, thanks for your message. You're doing great so far. Sorry if Wikipedia seems like a rough place sometimes, because for every authentic user like you, there are 100 others who are extremely persistent promotional spammers trying to evade as many rules as they can. I appreciate people like you who honestly declare everything, spend lots of time working hard to make sure you're doing everything the right way, and try to follow all Wikipedia guidelines. Keep it up, and I hope to see Jodi's article in mainspace soon. Some other reviewers may be quite rough on newcomers, but I try my best to adhere to WP:AGF and help build the encyclopedia. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Recommendations for An Indigenous Peoples' History draft page

Hi Sagotreespirit. I read your recommendation. Is there a Commons page that discusses the length of quotes? Would you say that only parts of one sentence, or one sentence is what is considered appropriate/acceptable within a Wiki page? I've shortened them to avoid copyright issues and welcome you to let me know if that's sufficient and thank you for alerting me to that problem. --PaulThePony (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@PaulThePony: Commons is a separate WMF project for storing multimedia, and has nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines. Do not use any direct quotes at all if you can avoid them. Wikipedia bots regularly scan the web to check for copyright violations. The bots will automatically tag drafts and articles for speedy deletions if potential copyright violations are suspected. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying about the Commons, Sagotreespirit. Much appreciated. I have substantively reworked a large portion of the page, hopefully producing something that is in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines, although my next task is to more carefully review it for quoted material. I am slightly confused about not using any quotes. May I presume that does not include snippets from other sites? I continue to await permission from Beacon Press and/or the artist who created the book cover for the paperback edition and may add other images, with appropriate permissions, down the road. With thanks for your assistance. --PaulThePony (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@PaulThePony: You can use snippets and quotes, but I'm just saying that Wikipedia bots have a tendency to blindly flag these articles as being potential copyright violations. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that clarification, Sagotreespirit . That is very useful info! PaulThePony (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Marco D'Elia

Is Marco D'Elia page approved ?
It's a simple question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinaGamal11 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@MinaGamal11: Yes, I had placed a tag requesting some copyediting because some of the English was garbled. Check Special:Log. You will also need to make sure it does not look like a promotional resume. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much--MinaGamal11 (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Pepper Group Comment Question


Hi. Thank you for reviewing the Pepper Group page.
I just have a question regarding your comment on the list of awards. Do they need to be removed? I noticed some pages that have an awards section also like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meriton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotiabank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Stanley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aflac
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Insurance_Group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aflac
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westfield_Insurance

Aurdivon (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Aurdivon: First of all, those are large companies with notable awards, although quite a few of the awards will likely need to be removed. You can mention selected notable awards, like just a few of the most relevant ones. The article should be written from an unconnected person's perspective, not the company's own point of view. Listing large lists of awards for smaller companies makes the article look like promotional spam rather than an encyclopedia article. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Sagotreespirit: Thanks a lot for the feedback. Aside from decreasing the list of awards to just a few notable ones, is there anything else that needs to be changed? Aurdivon (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@Sagotreespirit: Hi. I've decreased the awards to the most notable and relevant. Please review if this is now acceptable. Aurdivon (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


@Aurdivon: The same problems still there. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Request on 03:48:45, 29 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Chaekbeolle


The reviewer's comment was that all references in the article "Pansori-based fiction" were from Naver, a social media site. What the reviewer fails to understand is that the references are actually linked to books/websites written and created by experts, accessed via Naver. Naver provides access to encyclopedias, such as the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture, which is equivalent to the culture edition of the Britannica or other prominent encyclopedias. I believe that it is unfair to reject articles without actually checking what the references are.

Chaekbeolle (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Chaekbeolle: Fair enough, Naver Encyclopedia should be reliable, but they do not cite specific sources. Additionally, the main issues are that the submission reads too much like an essay and should be more navigable, and that more direct sources should cited rather than another online encyclopedia (Wikipedia:Articles with a single source). — Sagotreespirit (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Article for deletion

@Sagotreespirit: I see one the articles I'd created (Lauren Zeitels) was reviewed by you. Now, it's been nominated for deletion for the subject not being notable. The person who nominated does not seem to have researched very well. The subject clearly passes the Wikipedia:Notability (doctors), WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. Could you please take a moment to review Lauren Zeitels and participate in the discussion to share your research. Siddhesh.gaikwad (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Siddhesh.gaikwad: The article looks well written, but actual notability can be harder to assess. I'll let the others decide. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

11_11_Taobao_Shopping_festival

Hey @Sagotreespirit:, is there a way to see a deleted page? Some of my ESL students were making wikipedia articles as a class project, and one group had their page was deleted, as you can see here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/11_11_Taobao_Shopping_festival. I'm not disagreeing with wiki deletion policy on this one. But, as this was a course assignment, I need to see the page briefly to grade their work. Would it be possible to see a previous version of the article? I need to finish their semester grades in the next 5-6 days. The content also briefly was available Thanks, Jim37hike (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jim37hike: Here you go. Always make personal backup copies of your drafts if they are important to you. Why would a teacher want to assign Wikipedia projects to students though? This is a common excuse made up by covert advertisers. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Sagotreespirit: Thanks a lot! I was worried that the articles might already be gone--I didn't know about the everybodywiki site. I didn't know this was advertiser move, but I edit Wikipedia a few times a year and wouldn't deliberately spam it. I am teaching ESL students in a technology class, so I figured writing English-language articles about things from their home countries relatively unknown in the West would allow them to both stretch their English skills and allow them to meaningfully get their hands dirty in a great resource like wikipedia. Obviously, they were overmatched by the task. Most of them enjoyed it quite a bit, and a few of their articles were strong enough to stand the review process. But knowing the policy now, next time I'll do it via a private wiki. Jim37hike (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jim37hike: Thanks Jim, you definitely sound like a great teacher, and not an advertiser at all. You might also want to take a look at WP:OUTLET. I'm sure your students will like some of them. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Billy Starr

Hi! Thanks for reviewing my article draft. If you have a moment, I'd love to clarify a few items in case it's helpful knowledge here or in my future work:

1. Neutrality: I've made some updates to the wording in the article that may help address this. Generally speaking, there isn't much WP:BLP-compliant criticism of Starr available in sources, excepting his salary, which is included in the draft. I've tried to ensure all positive data points are grounded in facts and the sources. If you have further suggestions for how to ensure neutrality, I'd love to hear them.

2. I know the documentation on {{COI}} is unclear on this point, but my impression is that it's for use in cases of undisclosed COI. I strive to be transparent about my COIs on article talk pages and on my user page. I also use the edit request or AfC processes so that a neutral editor reviews any proposals of mine before they are live on Wikipedia. Given these considerations, is the {{COI}} flag still necessary? I do have {{Connected contributor (paid)}} in place on the talk page.

Thank you for your time! Mary Gaulke (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@MaryGaulke: Thanks for your message. I am sorry if Wikipedia seems like a rough place sometimes and if some of the other reviewers had been overly harsh, but you have done the right thing by being honest and straightforward. I have removed the COI tag. Good luck with your draft! — Sagotreespirit (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you – for the kind words and for removing the flag. If you have any additional feedback about the draft's neutrality, I'd really appreciate it. Regardless, thanks for your time! Mary Gaulke (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

San Francisco English advice

Hi there! I was the creator of the new Wikipedia page for San Francisco English and saw that you had it approved. I first just want to say thank you for that! I've been working on that page for quite some time now. I also saw that it was given a grade of C. What is the page missing that I could add to it? I just want it to be the best that it can be.

Thank you! EagleyeB101 (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@EagleyeB101: On Wikipedia, B and C mean that the article is very good. There is no A, D, or F. C means you did a really good job. Thanks for your contributions! — Sagotreespirit (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Review of Freshworks

Greeting. Regarding your review, the citations I included except one were secondary sources. The number of citations are less I agree but it satisfies WP:NCORP, so the tag {{Notablity}} you did is quite baffling. Regards Beastranger (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Beastranger: Notability has nothing to do with citations. Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
No offence but the article you tagged says about editing but I am talking about citations. Notability has "nothing to do with citations". I believe that is wrong as per WP:GNG as it states that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I am sorry as I don't know where did you learn about notability but the general policy guidelines and MOS I read do not confirm your view. If you go through or should have gone through WP:ORGCRITE, it states that "an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product." So I ask you to remove the tag or present any information you may know about notability apart from the guidelines I have highlighted. Regards, Beastranger (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Beastranger: I'll let you deal with the tag. Notability is for you to demonstrate per WP:BURDEN. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Request on 11:28:31, 4 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by BoazGil


Hi, i am not sure what you mean by press releases since I tried very hard to stick to facts. The company is a leader in its field and also has a hebrew article - which I translated) Can you please help me improve it? BoazGil (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

BoazGil (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@BoazGil: An encyclopedia article should not just have a long timeline. It needs to be well-rounded and should not look like a company "about us" page. You should take a look at WP:IBA. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Women Lawyers for Social Justice

Hi, I don't know how I can implement your suggestion, given that everything in the article is sourced from court documents, news articles, Government documents (official minutes of parliament meetings, for example), official reports and not a single press release... If there are particular statements you object to I would appreciate you letting me know and I can rephrase them, but I looked over the article again, and everything is factual. Almost every court case addressed by this organization created a legal precedent on the civil rights front, and that is not sensationalism, it is pure fact and not disputed by anyone. TMagen (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@TMagen: I have removed the tag. It looked like a PR brochure, which was why I had tagged Women Lawyers for Social Justice. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Muslims in British media

Dear editor, thanks for you scholarly opinions on my article, please help me to improve it both in form and content. I hope one day I reach your highly prestigious position. Anonyeader (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Anonyeader: Muslims in British media is a good article overall, but try adding some headings to make it more navigable. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Your advice is highly appreciated.Anonyeader (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC) regards,

@Anonyeader: Thanks. Also make sure there is a sentence introducing and defining the topic. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, a lead will be added to the text, how about tone of the speaker? did you find it sarcastic, it's very important for me, if yes please tell which parts should be re-written to make it unbiased? Anonyeader (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Lalbagh moved to draft space:

Appreciate your work but I know " (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia)" and that is the reason I had put google books verification links. Were you able to visit the same ?Bharat1 (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bharat1: Add more citations and information. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

GoLance

Hi Sago. I notice you just patrolled GoLance. This had been previously deleted as G11 and then identically recreated. First did you consider G11? Second which sources did you feel met NCORP? One reason I tagged it G11 was that in addition to being promotional I did not feel the company was notable (at least by the sources present in the article - I didn't do a BEFORE because I felt it was G11). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Hi Barkeep, first I had given it a peacock tag because it looked like spammy PR. I had gotten the impression that goLance might be notable because of the Forbes mentions, but a closer look reveals that those are actually passing mentions. NCORP isn't always straightforward, but it seems like this company may not really meet NCORP. I have just placed a notability tag and unreviewed it. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I think AfD may also be suitable for goLance. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Sagotreespirit, given that it's spammy PR what's holding you back from G11? It has already been tagged and deleted for it once so it's not like you're out on a limb. I am not trying to pressure you - and will open up the AfD if you really don't think G11 applies - but I don't like to make two consecutive reviewer actions on an article (outside of limited circumstance) and but think it remains an appropriate candidate for speedy deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I typically use CSD for content that obviously does not belong on Wikipedia, such as vandalism and poorly written blatant advertising. GoLance looked more like an AfD-type article to me. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Now here is an article that I would typically nominate for speedy deletion: Andy Warski. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Knowledge Lens Review

Hey, Sagotreespirit I am really thankful to you for reviewing my 1st-page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Knowledge_Lens. I removed advertisement contents which I feel it should not be there. Can you please review once more by which I can get more context and will not repeat this type of thing again in my Wikipedia journey, And If you find this good, then please let me know.

Love from India Aviralrdb (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Aviralrdb (talk • contribs)

@Aviralrdb: The problem is that it looks more like a corporate brochure or advertisement than an encyclopedia article, especially the Awards and Recognition section. Hardly anything had changed. Please read WP:IBA, WP:BUZZWORD, WP:PEACOCK. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@Sagotreespirit: Now I removed them also can you please check that again.

Thanks for your Help Aviralrdb (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Aviralrdb (talk • contribs)

NEXTCLINICS

Thank you for check of NEXTCLINICS draft. I changed the texts fo negative point of view. Is article OK now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondrejpisa (talk • contribs) 12:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ondrejpisa: The problem is not WP:NPOV. It's WP:IBA. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft: InfoBeans

Thank you for reviewing the Draft: InfoBeans.

Related to the comment of submission declined, could you please take a moment to review it again and suggest if any changes needed as I have made some changes.

Everything in the article is sourced from news articles, official reports of the company. If there are particular statements you object to I would appreciate you letting me know and I can rephrase them, but I looked over the article again, and everything is factual.

Need help on this as I am new to Wikipedia.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1994vd (talk • contribs) 11:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@1994vd: The problem is that it looks more like a corporate brochure than an encyclopedia article. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you can suggest specific changes required. Is it related to references or the content flow as I noticed some pages also have similar content and references

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_Systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HCL_Technologies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1994vd (talk • contribs) 12:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you please take a moment to review it again and suggest if any specific changes required.

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1994vd (talk • contribs) 14:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Porome language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bird of paradise (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:48, 15 December 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)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Districts of West Papua, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Konda language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Krenak languages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Guandu River
Maxakalían languages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cachoeira River

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Sagotreespirit,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


Patrolling of articles

Hello! Colleague, could you please to patrol this and this articles? Thank you. — Green Zero обг 17:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Green Zero: Sumitomo Forestry is notable, but I'm not sure about the other one. I'll leave it there for now. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

improved draft

Saravicca (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC) 10/01/2019

Thanks for your suggestions to improve the Wikipedia draft page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Reinhart_Ceulemans. I rewrote large parts of it (following some examples from other scientists' wikipages). Can you have a look if this is acceptable now, or tell me what parts need improvement?

Best regards, Sara

@Saravicca: Looks a lot better. A few more revisions and it might be ready for acceptance. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Classification schemes for indigenous languages of the Americas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Yuri language
Kaingang language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Paraná

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
for new unclassified language of North America (Janambre, Mexico). Thanks. Jkrn111 (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Jkrn111: Thanks a lot! — Sagotreespirit (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Adai language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cedar
Kaimbé language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Possum
Kiriri people (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Kiriri
Taruma language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rio Negro
Tuxá language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Guarani

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Martin Fayomi

Hello Sagotreespirit (talk),

Please can you check out my draft Draft:Martin Fayomi, would like to move it to article space --Goldie19 (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Goldie19: Not yet, the notability is a bit questionable. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

lumping

Just curious. You repeat the claim by Foley that the following Namla and Tofanma words are cognates. 

‘eat’	sa	dimisipe
‘eye’	lɪle	yei
‘moon’	pei	min-yaku
‘stone’	sou	kəlo
‘water’	nomu	basu
‘1pl’	mani	ngu
‘2pl’	yuka	dule

He says that "not much more is available for these languages", so how could he have possibly established these sound correspondences? — kwami (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Given the context, it's obvious this is just another table of common vocab, parallel to his other tables, and so has no business being in our family article. — kwami (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Don't completely remove word lists of Papuan languages, even if you disagree with the author's claims. Word lists of languages from these parts of the world can be hard to come by. Move the content into articles of the individual languages. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it was a claim, just an error. I did move some of the others to the individual articles. I hesitated in this case, because we don't normally provide word lists on WP per DICT. Such lists really belong on Wiktionary, which we can then link to from the language article. — kwami (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I wouldn't include long word lists for languages like Romanian or Quechua per WP:DICT, but for poorly attested languages, it is absolutely worth listing some lexical samples to add to the encyclopedic value of the article. But please don't ever remove word lists, because it takes great deal of time and effort to find, digitize, and wikify them. There's no doubt that comparativists and other specialists find them to be of great value too. Just move the lists elsewhere and leave a note about where they were moved. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I did that with some, but it requires me to rewrite your tables in triplicate. I assume you're going off a DB and so could generate individual tables. Could you just add vocab to the individual language articles unless they'er actually cognates or reconstructions? — kwami (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Yes, that's very doable for me. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Kariri languages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Rhea and Pesqueira
Chapacuran languages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Atta
Xukuru language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pesqueira

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for reviewing my article on elephant falls. Enjoy the tea ! DishitaBhowmik 15:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Dishita Bhowmik: Thanks! And what's Shillong tea like? — Sagotreespirit (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sagotreespirit: Shillong isn't quite famous for its tea as it is for its hills, waterfalls and other natural beauty. However, I'm sure that the tea from my native place, is one of the best in the world. Ever heard of Darjeeling tea Sagotreespirit ?

Are you a Brit by any means by the way ? DishitaBhowmik 10:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Not yet, but tea from Sikkim sounds interesting. You can write about it on Wikipedia too if you'd like, perhaps a new section in an existing article. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
No, just a Wikipedian without borders. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sagotreespirit: Tea from Sikkim sounds interesting! Once I finish the draft you can review/improve it. I'm usually busy so it might take time though.

And if you come to India some day, I would be glad to introduce you to "the champagne of teas", the Darjeeling tea DishitaBhowmik 12:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sagotreespirit: Hi, hope you are doing well. I have collected some amount of information for the article draft of Sikkim Tea. If you are free, I might want some suggestions. You can find the material to read in my sandbox. You will find the link to my sandbox on my user page. Thanks in advance for your time. DishitaBhowmik 13:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft : Winston Price

Hi Sagotreespirit ! Can you please review my draft Winston Price?
DishitaBhowmik 15:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dishita Bhowmik: Add categories and a few more references, and it should be ready. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sagotreespirit: I have added categories and more references and a bit more information I was able to dig. I was looking for a image and couldn't find one on commons. However there is this picture for sale [search image] . Can this be used after I download it? I coudn't understand wether it would create copyright issues or not. What do you think? DishitaBhowmik 11:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Dishita Bhowmik: Good work! It looks ready now. Just add more categories. As for the image, I do not recommend it unless it is a public domain image. Upload images onto Commons first. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sagotreespirit: I have found out few more suitable categories. Hope its ready now. DishitaBhowmik 13:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Dishita Bhowmik:  Done — Sagotreespirit (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sagotreespirit:Thanks once again! DishitaBhowmik 17:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Notability reference for Article Punit Sood

Hi @Sagotreespirit: - Thanks for taking time and reviewing this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punit_Sood). I have added notable references on subject and removed passing mentions. It should be good to go now. Suggest and I will look into further. regds.. RufinaSmith (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@RufinaSmith: It looks better now. Add more categories if you can. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Panoan languages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Blowpipe
Yabutian languages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Blackbird

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)