This is an archive of past discussions with User:The4lines. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi The4lines. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
John Ennis Artist Writer Decline
This page would help in that a page exists for an artist who is John Ennis from the same area the 1960 John Ennis grew up
So a page is needed since the 1960 Artist is a very valuable NFT Artist now, and the Portrait Painter has little value, yet he has a page
The NFT Artist is lead designer on many Art Projects, who has been a famous creative since the start of the Internet
There needs to be a page to differentiate between John Ennis Portrait Artist of little value and John Ennis a major NFT artist involved in mega million NFT art projects — Preceding unsigned comment added by Museumcuratormma (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@Museumcuratormma I really don't understand what your're saying but if you want the article to be accepted, you have to find reliable sources and make sure the person you're writing about is notable too. If you need help just follow the links in my decline message. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions)16:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I was confused a while back when researching to buy some of his NFT's, which I guess WIKI has a bias about (NFT Artists). I found his birth name and his religious name is used in the art project I invested in. That name is on what is one of the busiest art sites in the world, like 200K alexa, John Ennis .com the portrait guy you have a page on and the filmmaker .org have zero alexa traffic. So he's notable, and for any looking up his projects like cryptogods that trade on markets for mega millions, there is confusion, is he the portrait artist from Bucks County, the guy grew up there. The confusion is why does WIKI have a bias against guys like him doing mega millions in NFTs. Wiki will rather have a worthless portrait painter with the same name instead of a guy doing a dozen NFT projects who is in museums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Museumcuratormma (talk • contribs) 17:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I didn't want it to seem spammy, all the links to news sites and whatever, the guy is famous for decades on the Net and uses a lot of names, however, now that he is lead artist on big art projects, there needs to be a page so people know he's not the other John Ennis', he doesn't even use the name, since I collect his art nfts, I got notice he was starting to use his birthname as a hub to put all his aliases into. So I tried to keep it simple, no links to his huge network to pump him, just hey this is not the portrait guy or the guy who just started doing documentaries, or the baseball player, etc. He has IMDB for some of his movies, he has tons of books lots of sites and now his art is all over NFT Markets, lots of projects. The fact the nobody artist and filmmaker have pages and he doesn't shows a bias. He's not them, that in itself is notable. If anyone is looking for his art, they need to know he's not the portrait guy. There comes a point where links look like spam, his site has tons of links, isn't that enough? It took me a while to realize he's not the guy in Bucks County and that's his area he was in as a kid. Museumcuratormma (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for looking at the page I've created for the Naturalist/Explorer Henry Cushier Raven.
I'm new to Wiki so I wanted to ask... I've made the changes you mentioned (change the tone + reduce the lead paragraph). Will the article still qualify for review, or has the article failed the review process?
Also, do I need to mention the changes on the "Talk" page for the article?
@DavidH86 Thanks for reaching out! No it hasn't failed the review process yet. You can still submit the article for review as many times as you want, as long as its only been declined not rejected. It hasn't really failed until its been rejected. Tags are normal on pages and are really there for suggestions. You can see many major articles with tags, and most aren't a huge deal. The article was really quite interesting and I enjoyed reading it. I'm sure if you fix it up it'll pass. Best and happy editing! Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions)20:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.
AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.
Hi The4lines. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 01:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:
Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.
These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.
Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)
Hello and welcome to the April newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2021.
Election results: Jonesey95 retired as lead coordinator. Reidgreg was approved to fill this role after an 18-month absence from the coordinator team, and Baffle gab1978 was chosen as an assistant coordinator following a one-year break. Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu continued on as long-standing assistant coordinators.
January Drive: Of the 22 editors who signed up, 16 editors claimed 146 copy edits including 45 requests. (details)
February Blitz: This one-week effort focused on requests and a theme of Africa and African diaspora history. Of the 12 editors who signed up, 6 editors recorded 21 copy edits, including 4 requests. (details)
March Drive: Of the 28 editors who signed up, 18 claimed 116 copy edits including 25 requests. (details)
April Blitz: This one-week copy editing event has been scheduled for 17–23 April, sign up now!
Progress report: As of 11 April, copy editors have removed approximately 500 articles from the backlog and completed 127 copy-editing requests during 2022. The backlog has been hovering at about 1,100 tagged articles for the past six months.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Hello there! I noticed you have an article up for peer review and it's not had any comments yet. I've begun looking over the article. I'm not very experienced in PR myself yet, so I might not be the best reviewer you've had, but I was wondering if you'd be interested in a quid pro quo, as I also have an unanswered peer review. (It's fine if you aren't, just thought I'd ask.) Happy editing! Perfect4th (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
@Perfect4th: Hmm, I'm not a good reviewer to be completely honest with you, and I think your peer review deserves better. No one likes a bad reviewer. Thanks for taking up my PR! Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions)14:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The information I posted was taken directly from the Library's ABOUT section on their public website and I included a citation link to the page that I used to provide the information, while also making the text less subjective than the information provided by the library itself. I may have put the link in the wrong sections, as I had placed them at the headers because I was going to be borrowing so much text. Please consider undoing you edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleaiactaest0753 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.
Our top scorers in round 2 were:
Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.
The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and CwmhiraethCwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello!! Im trying to make an article yet its only giving me suggestions even though I already know what I want to write about! Is there any way I could make my own? --The.Antonella.Rose (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.
Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.
In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 824 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 849 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.
This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
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 and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
Hello! I need help regarding my first publication - I have to publish a Wiki article on a prominent digital ID company in the Baltics. It is a well-known company, and a similar article has been approved on Wiki Latvia (in Latvian language.) However, whenever I try to publish my article, or at least its' draft, the article never gets approved any further than my Sandbox. What should I do? I'm on a tight deadline here, so any help would be greatly appreciated! --Evelina.g2345 (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
@Evelina.g2345: Hello, what do you mean by "tight deadline?" Are you getting paid to write this article? Are you aware you need to disclose on the article if you're being paid to write the article? If you are being paid, I would recommend reading this. All the drafts have been deleted so I can't see them anymore but looking at the messages on your talk page I would say; First, you need reliable, secondary sources, not just the company's web site. Second: You have to write it as neutral as possible, without bias. Hope this helps. Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions)15:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. I have actually disclosed the fact that I'm getting paid to write it. Unfortunately, the sources are mostly the company's website. Why do you think they were ok when writing for Latvian Wikipedia, but not okay for English one? In addition, what should I do if I have to write the information, but the sources are not reliable? One last question is, is it okay to use sources from articles, banks' web sites, etc. that are written in language other than English? 62.80.225.132 (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
@Evelina.g2345: or @62.80.225.132: Sorry for the late response, I've been busy. For the first question, I'm not sure how the Latvian Wikipedia works, but they most likely have different rules for notability. They might also not have the manpower to check every article that goes through. Because the English Wikipedia is the biggest and most important Wikipedia, we hold our articles to higher standards. For the second question, If you don't have reliable sources to back up your writing, then you probably shouldn't be writing about it. For the last question, yes, you can use sources that are in different languages, although English sources are preferred as stated in WP:NOENG. Hope this helps. Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions)21:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I have now edited my first draft, added new, more notable and reliable sources, and tried to publish it again. Fingers crossed! It is crucial for Wikipedia editors to understand that Smart-ID, the digital ID tool that I'm writing about, is a state approved and state used tool. In Estonia, Smart-ID is a state matter, it is trusted, and it is used by state institutions. I'm just wondering how could I put the emphasis here. Because right now I feel like a bit of a fraudster/marketer/etc. when I'm actually writing on an important topic! Evelina.g2345 (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the June 2022 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since April 2022. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.
Blitz: of the 16 editors who signed up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, 12 completed at least one copy-edit, and between them removed 21 articles from the copy-editing backlog. Barnstars awarded are here.
Drive: 27 editors signed up for our May Backlog Elimination Drive; of these, 20 copy-edited at least one article. 144 articles were copy-edited, and 88 articles from our target months August and September 2021 were removed from the backlog. Barnstars awarded are here.
Progress report: As of 07:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 209 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 1,404 articles.
Election news: Nominations for our half-yearly Election of Coordinators continues until 23:50 on 15 June (UTC), after which, voting will commence until 23:59, 30 June (UTC). All Wikipedians in good standing (active and not blocked, banned, or under ArbCom or community sanctions) are eligible and self-nominations are welcomed.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Tenryuu
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.
Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]
In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).
While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).
Backlog drive
A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
TIP – New school articles
Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
Misc
There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 11131 articles, as of 02:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC), according to DatBot
There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
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 and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
