User talk:Animalparty/Archive 5

Happy New Year, Animalparty!


Happy New Year! Animalparty, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Eddie891 Talk Work 17:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Richard Frank Salisbury Page
Regarding the Richard Frank Salisbury page. Thank you for looking at my first Wikipedia page. It has been a sharp learning curve understanding Wiki page writing (which I'm far from proficient at as yet) and I put a few days into writing my first page.

I have no conflict of interest in this matter. Dick Salisbury has been dead for over 30 years and he is an academic - there is no financial interest, the article is not about me, there are no personal commentaries in the article I wrote. My recent interest in Dick is because I have been helping as a volunteer to facilitate Mary Salisbury's donation of Richard Salisbury's artifacts to the Redpath Museum. I believe that there should be a Wikipedia page so that researchers can find this collection at the Museum.

Since the page was made live, I have recruited at least one Canadian Anthropology Society members who is intending to improve on the page this week to make it more scholarly and of greater worth. I think it would be a big mistake if this page was taken down. I think it is a very important contribution.

Cathsalis (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I'm not advocating the article's removal (the subject is clearly notable), and it needs relatively small tweaks to achieve a more neutral, professional tone. A conflict of interest can arise even for long dead subjects, or where there is no financial connection. Writing about a family member, or an area in which one is personally or professionally connected can influence coverage (see Expert editors for advice), even if under the best intentions. Your user name resembles a combination of the subject's last name and name of one of his children, and you have claimed "own work" on photos you've uploaded to Commons so please forgive me if my suspicion was unwarranted. The best way to improve the article for the moment would be to draw more heavily from secondary sources (books/articles about Salisbury, not by him), reduce subjective tone, and consider whether all verifiable facts are relevant (if you work for the Redpath museum, even on a volunteer basis, undue emphasis to it and McGill may arise). See WP:PROPORTION and WP:WEIGHT for more guidelines. Lastly, and this is more of an issue for Commons, copyright of photographs and other works is generally held by the original photographer or creator, not the subject itself or institution holding the photographs unless contractually arranged. The photographs may in fact be Public Domain (in which case, any claims to copyright would be moot). I will leave a message on Commons with more info. Cheers, and Happy New Year. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Zoologist
Dear Friend,

concerning your edit on The Zoologist in which you removed some "completely arbitrary and frivolous (articles): there must be hundreds if not thousands of articles to cherry-pick". You are right, in so far, that there are many more important articles, published over the years in The Zoologist. That's exactly the reason why I am working on The Zoologist on Wikisource for quite some time already; some of the first results become available now. It will still take a lot of time to make the full set available. But we keep working on it! In the meantime I had the intention to update the stub in Wikipedia with "important" articles every now and then. But perhaps you have different ideas about how to handle this. Of course every selection is arbitrary. But an arbitrary selection is perhaps better than no selection at all.

The factual problem with your edit is, that the articles you removed were referred to in the text. These references are now missing. So perhaps it is a good idea to leave them at their place until a better solution is available. Greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, an encyclopedia article about a subject should not become or resemble a platform for showcasing the subject. And while I was unaware that the articles I removed were also inline citations, I think that citing any arbitrary articles just to prove they exist runs afoul of WP:PRIMARY and WP:PSTS, and hinders a neutral point of view in presenting elements disproportionately to their coverage in reliable secondary sources. "Important" articles is a loaded and subjective term. If secondary sources on the history of The Zoologist consistently single out works by Selous and Howard above others, then we need to cite those secondary sources to establish due weight and proportionality. Otherwise, picking arbitrary articles just because they exist on Wikisource, or because they strike the fancy of me or you, runs the risk of misrepresentation, original synthesis or even original research. I included the Wikisource link to The Zoologist, where users can browse articles at their leisure, but there needs to be better justification for why we should be directing readers to individual articles in Wikipedia's voice. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Why the parameter "axing"?
I can as well ask you: why are you being an "axe"? Your at Jim Berkland was not good, let alone necessary, where it split citation first/last and volume/issue/pages parameters onto separate lines. Grouping these parameters on the same line increases readability and aids in error-checking, and thus improves accuracy, while splitting them serves no purpose. Please don't do that. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The bot added archived links to now dead URLs, which is a positive addition, improving verification. Grouping certain parameters on the same line may have a practical, or aesthetic use, but is not mandatory, and no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don't care either way. A wrench tweaks and tightens small errors as they arise. An axe chops away bluntly. Cheers. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If you don't care, then why split the parameters? It is not an error (small or otherwise) to group parameters, and splitting them in the course of doing other edits is "chopping away bluntly". Please don't do that. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not split the parameters, the bot did. I honestly did not notice the changes to parameters, because their arbitrary formatting is trivial compared to preserving working links. Feel free to restore the parameter grouping you prefer, and I will vigilantly guard against all future attempts to alter them. I'm terribly sorry for causing you trouble, and will try not to do it again. All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. If the bot contributes to this problem (perhaps a default setting?) perhaps you would favor fixing that. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Help please with "part-submerged" article
Hello Animalparty, while doing mostly copyedits on the article about Germaine de Staël, I realised that a great chunk of earlier unmodified text was not appearing either under "preview" or "publish changes". I have never come across this before. I have left a message on the Talk page. It affects text from the end of subsection "Mistress of Coppet" up to the section on "Offspring". Is this a unicode glitch or to do with my computer? Your skilled eye on this would be most helpful. Thank you. --Po Mieczu (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Parts of the article are in Hidden text, i.e. all the content between . Hidden text might include helpful comments for other editors regarding the adjacent text, or material that is pending verification, or pending relocation elsewhere. If the hidden text is worth adding to the encyclopedia, it should be unhidden. If it is content that doesn't belong in the article, it should probably be removed or added to another article as editorial discretion warrants, per WP:VNOTSUFF or WP:OFFTOPIC. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. It is distinctly a laborious piece. I'll have a go at sorting it. Thanks for your time!--Po Mieczu (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your advice, Animalparty, worked like a dream. I hope the result is warranted! Regards, --Po Mieczu (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Horace William Petherick
I am unsure what the protocol is here - should I be trying to talk to you on this page or my own talk page.
 * First: Thanks for your comments - I will try and improve the article as suggested.
 * Second: Re CC licence for Two Children Photo - you said that the CC BY-NC licence was false. The creative commons page on the [website:https://www.artuk.org/discover/artworks/two-children-88673] says This image is available to be shared and re-used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial licence (CC BY-NC). Elsewhere on the ArtUK site (though I can't find the page this morning) I gave two forms of how it would like the work to be acknowledged in the caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncosgrave (talk • contribs) 11:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe your browser is different than mine, or I need to be logged in to see additional material, because I don't see any mention of Creative Commons on that link. This blanket copyright page vaguely and confusingly mentions "any relevant Creative Commons licence... and/or for non-commercial research." The image is very likely PD regardless of what the Art UK website claims (U.S. does not recognize the mere act of scanning a public domain image to constitute original authorship, see Sweat of the brow), but note that Non-Commercial (the "NC" in CC BY-NC) restrictions are incompatible with Wikipedia or Commons: see "Can I copy from open license or public domain sources?" and Commons:Licensing: with the exception of fair-use content, all media on Wikipedia must be free to be modified and reused for any purpose, even commercial. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020
Hello ,

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.
 * Source Guide Discussion

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.
 * Redirects


 * Discussions and Resources
 * There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
 * A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
 * A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
 * A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

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.
 * Refresher

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)

Orphaned non-free image File:All Set for A Super-Secret Session in Washington - Jim Berryman 1949.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:All Set for A Super-Secret Session in Washington - Jim Berryman 1949.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Indica Pranay Lal Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Indica Pranay Lal Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

(The) Cambrian Quarterly Magazine and Celtic Repertory
Hi Animalparty, thanks for moving Red Dragon (magazine) to The Red Dragon (magazine). Could you also move Cambrian Quarterly Magazine and Celtic Repertory to The Cambrian Quarterly Magazine and Celtic Repertory please? (I'm not sure of all the associated details that also need changing.) Thanks. ~ RLO1729 &#128172; 01:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Mythological birds


A tag has been placed on Category:Mythological birds requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Long titles?
Hmmm, ok. So, think we should move this one too? The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think moving that is appropriate in this case. Choosing the most appropriate article title is often a compromise between different guidelines, e.g. WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE, WP:SUBTITLES, WP:COMMONNAME, etc. In some cases a subtitle can be kept if it aids in disambiguating two works with the same title (although some may favor a parenthetical disambiguator such as "(book)" for more concise but less natural disambiguation. Note, I reverted your move of J. Blair Seaborn because the full name does not appear to be the most widely used name. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

appreciation
I could go through and thank each of your edits, but it seemed more efficient to thank you here for your work on The McLain Family Band (plus at Commons)! —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 19:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! that's very kind of you. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Leal Douglas
That picture was a great find,, many thanks. As you may have spotted, it is from The Beetle, so I have added it here. Moonraker (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks! --Animalparty! (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Entomologist photos
Hi, thanks for revising the images on the individual entomologist pages from the Joicey photo. I wondered what you would think of replacing them with the equivalent images cropped from the sepia version of the original instead of B&W. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 03:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In the case of scans of reproductions like File:BulletinHillMuseum1921HillMuseumJoicey cropped.jpg, I don't think they were originally sepia-toned photographs, but rather black-and-white prints on white on paper that yellowed over time, so I don't think there is much value to restoring the yellowing, although a slight tint does give a bit of warmth. If we had access to the original photographic prints that the journal used for reproduction, and those were toned, then a stronger case could be made (for instance File:Georgia O'Keeffe MET DT227433.jpg is a palladium print, so the tone is more integral to the work). I personally don't think it's worth the effort to restore the greenish yellow from age but wouldn't object to you enhancing the scans with a slight warm tone. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

George Robinson (bookseller)
Yes, you are probably right. I couldn’t make up my mind between George Robinson (bookseller) and George Robinson (publisher). But someone I have quoted called him “king of the booksellers, so I think you jumped the right way. Moonraker (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Bookseller" seems to be the most common single-word descriptor, as used by UK National Archives, Royal Academy, and Dictionary of National Biography. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Clay Jenkins
How did you you find that image of Clay Jenkins? I was having a lot of trouble finding images that I knew weren't copyrighted.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 02:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I just searched "Clay Jenkins" on Wikimedia Commons, and found File:FEMA - 45987 - Photograph by Earl Armstrong taken on 01-24-2011 in Texas.jpg. Fortunately the file had good descriptive text. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like an idiot now haha. I can't believe I didn't think about that. Thanks!  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 19:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

What contribution wasn't constructive
What contribution wasn't constructive?
 * You appear to be doing nothing other than anonymously (as an unregistered IP addresses) posting inflammatory, undue "LAST WARNING"!!!! notices on user talk pages without mentioning the vandalism you imply. If you have an issue with some edits I have made, tell me. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
Hello ,

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. 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.
 * Your help can make a difference
 * Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
 * 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)

Hi animalparty. Thank you for your message on my page. I am simply trying to include more information on scholars that are missing from the "american scholars of Islam" page. I got all my information for the pages I created from the internet. That is it.

Thank you for your concern and your message is appreciated as I will keep in mind not to create a page that has any seemingly "promotion" type links. I see it my duty to add more information to Wikipedia on figures, ideas, for the greater public good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islamandscischolars (talk • contribs) 19:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyright
, thank you for your assistance with an image at Frank Park. I should have checked Commons, to see if that image already existed. You straightened that out. My experience with image usage, and copyright issues, is limited. So I was hoping that you might offer a second opinion on a matter that is hanging up a DYK approval. I reviewed Elizabeth Read, and believe that the photograph used in that article might have some restrictions attached. The article creator thinks otherwise. There is a short discussion on that subject. Your opinion would be controlling, should you wish to offer one. Either way, thanks for helping out with Frank Park. Gulbenk (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thriii and China Anne McClain
Hello, you added a non-existent category to both Thriii and China Anne McClain. Just to let you know, both edits have been undone by me because it wasn't clear what it is that you were trying to do by adding these categories. Maybe you can enlighten me? Otherwise, just see this as a notification that you made typos on both pages. Factfanatic1 (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing those errors. Those were the result of a Cat-a-lot error. I reverted most of them, but missed a couple. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Use of detailed dates
Hello,. On a number of edits on work that I've done, you have removed detailed dates from persons mentioned in the text. The reason why I try if possible to provide full dates is simple. At present, from a Western European or North American, perspective, people can often be identified sufficiently well by the years of birth and death, if there is other identifying data. However, this ignores the growing importance of China. With every year, China is a growing both as an economic heavyweight and as a font of scholarship. More and more articles will contain references to people from China. The problem with just using years to identify such people is that the majority of Chinese share relatively few surnames (47.4% of mainland Chinese have the surname Wang, for example). Thus I believe that, rather than treating references to Chinese persons in a different way, we should try to identify all persons referred to as uniquely as possible, hence the use of accurate birth and death dates where available.Johncosgrave (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Belittling
I wasn't trying to belittle Helene Odilon. I have always included a subject's personal life before their career, man or woman, before I included their career section. SL93 (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Starting an article with birth and early life is one thing, as you did in Mildred Hope Fisher Wood, but jumping from birth straight to marriages, and giving them devoted sections with almost as much prose as her career gives the sense that marriages are more noteworthy than her career. Would it be appropriate for Alexander Girardi to start with discussion of his unhappy marriage to Odilon before mentioning his most renowned roles? It's an issue of presentation, balance, relative emphasis, and style, all of which are admittedly somewhat subjective. I find a combination of the inverted pyramid model and chronological flow often makes for better articles. Section headers also add more visual weight, and can impede visual flow in relatively short articles, so should be applied judiciously to emphasize the most relevant aspects of a biography (e.g. everyone dies, not every article warrants a 'death' section). Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, but don't automatically assume that was an editor's attention. Yes, I feel like it would be appropriate because that is what I would have done in his personal life section, which I always add first. I jumped from birth to marriage because I can't find English sources for anything in between... SL93 (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Belittling may have been too strong a word, and I apologize. I didn't intend to disparage you or your contributions. 'Unbalanced' may have been a better term. Article structure can subtly, even subconsciously reflect or perpetuate existing gender biases in historic writing, as touched upon at Writing about women. And I would say most Good and Featured Article biographies discuss personal life throughout the prose, as appropriate, and/or if a Personal life/marriages section is present, it's often near the end, as relatively less prominent than other aspects of the biography. Every biography is different of course, and structure can change as article expands. Happy editing! --Animalparty! (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the apology. It certainly isn't unconscious with me or else I would be belittling my own gender also. SL93 (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Bryans Donkin
Hallo, if you've got a source for the info in your edit summary "‎ The Bryan Donkin (1768–1855) was this Byron's grandfather. Bryan Donkin Jr. (1809–1893) currently lacks an article.", it would be useful to add the names and dates of both father and grandfather here, to clarify. Thanks. Pam D  06:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added the sources and clarified the article. Less reliable but sill informative sources for genealogy include Find a Grave and FamilySearch entries. There are at least 5 Bryan Donkins in the family (6 if you include Sydney Bryan), and all but Horatio seem to have become civil engineers. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks: clarification like that is always useful especially when we've already seen confusion. Too many similar names. (I am descended from 4 generations of Roberts Moffat, which makes researching that bit of the family tree complicated.) Pam  D  16:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Edward Wilkinson
Hi Animalparty. Thank you for your message on my talkpage. I have requested a history merge for the above article as you suggested. However I would be most grateful if you could kindly explain the nature of the problem? The history of the article is still there on its history page, as from 2011. Is the problem actually that I copied and pasted my expansion from my userpage? I have been copying and pasting my articles to mainspace for something like 15 years, and this is the first time my userspace editing history has been asked for. For your information, my userspace history for the creation of this article expansion is here. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The previous article was at Thomas Wilkinson (bishop of Zululand), which dates back to 2009 and had corresponding Wikidata linkage. By usurping the redirect Thomas Edward Wilkinson, the article history is disrupted, and a duplicate Wikidata item was created (now merged). A better option would have been to request a move (rename) of Thomas Wilkinson (bishop of Zululand) first, and then expand with new content. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm a bit puzzled though, as my request here has been completed but admin said there was nothing to do. I shall, however, bear this in mind in future, and request a page move from admin if the move system cannot do it automatically. Storye book (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Extinct and Vanishing Birds of the World
Hi, Animalparty. I noticed you doing some welcome housekeeping in and around the Lauder Greenway family of pages. After reading your User page it occurred to me that you might be ideal to dig into something related: a new article for Extinct and Vanishing Birds of the World by James Greenway. Based on cursory research, the book feels like a seminal entry to the ornithological canon -- if not zoology overall. The page would need someone of your expertise and skill-set though. Let me know if you have any interest, I can happily provide biographical details on the author if you are. 1I0I1I0I1I0 (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)1I0I1I0I1I0
 * I'm not a specialist in ornithology, but I must say I've never heard of the book. While it seems to have a few expected contemporary reviews in journals, it doesn't seem to have had the social impact of a Silent Spring, nor accolades like The Beak of the Finch. Are there enough reliable, third-party sources that would support a separate article? It looks like it's ably discussed already in James Greenway's article, giving due weight and proportional coverage. For comparison, the notable Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (famous among students and researchers of western North America) is discussed in a section at Robert C. Stebbins. I find most stand-alone book articles on Wikipedia are either unsatisfying stubs that merely state existence of book and the existence of reviews (minimally meeting WP:NBOOK), or are overly-detailed fluffed-up showcases written by fans, that resemble book reports more than encyclopedic articles. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * All salient points. Well received. The author is such a unique character that I suspect that the book have a bit more thrust to it that what is on his page. Rather than beginning the uphill climb to a unique page, will simply investigate to expand the books subsection within James Greenway. Wishing you well! 1I0I1I0I1I0

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Edith Grace White for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Edith Grace White 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 Articles for deletion/Edith Grace White 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.  Hun ter  12:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello ,



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 who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to and  who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to, , and 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 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.
 * Year in review

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.
 * Reviewer of the Year

As a special recognition and thank you 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.
 * NPP Technical Achievement Award

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

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

William Brooks Close
Thanks for the tweak to the lead. I referred to him as a colonist because that was what multiple sources used to describe him. Your tweak is better though. SL93 (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! --Animalparty! (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Take it easy
Hey, Animalparty:

There is probably some Wikipedia rule against deleting massive sections of an article, specifically, the entire Literary Correspondence section of the T. O'Conor Sloane III article because you feel it to be too intricate in detail and would only interest a small audience. That's your opinion. Let the audience be the judge of that, not you. That section provides insight into the work of the man. I have reverted that section and will continue to do so if you decide to be unreasonable about it - then we can take up with the arbiters. It is one thing to improve an article through skillful edits, quite another to slash large quantities of quality research and work that provide value to the understanding of the subject and his contributions. Your approach is not productive and might even dissuade the casual Wiki editor from making contributions to this admirable venture - I, however, do not fall into that category. Be more mindful of your wholesale and callous deletions.

Ilikewiki2020 (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Ilikewiki2020
 * Hello. Welcome to Wikipedia. There are certainly lots of policies and guidlines. Sometimes I am blunt. My only aim is to help make well written encyclopedia articles. And sometimes that means removing things that don't really belong, especially if they are given disproportionate coverage to the subject as a whole. See also Writing better articles. I explained the reasons for my actions on Talk:T. O'Conor Sloane III. You and I are engaged in the Bold-revert-discuss model in a quest to ultimately make better articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I think Wikipedia article should resemble legitimate encyclopedia articles: logical paragraphs summarizing published knowledge in due weight. From my view, T. O'Conor Sloane III, while certainly well-researched, is overly detailed throughout, padded with extraneous info, and built too largely from primary sources and passing mentions. This makes it not only arduous for readers, but risks original research or original synthesis if it builds a narrative that is not actually present in any given source. The "Literary Correspondence" section appears the most excessive and disposable part of this article, which is why I removed it the talk page for preservation. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Every section in the article, as well as the number of sections, can and should be streamlined, trimmed of fluff, and consolidated. Lastly, I notice that your contributions have been almost exclusively regarding Sloane family. This is not certainly forbidden, but should you have any personal or professional connections to the subjects please review Conflict of interest guidelines. Cheers. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your response. I can be blunt as well, perhaps a fault, depending upon whom you ask. I am writing about Sloane III and therefore some detail has also been provided about his family, an approach that I see in just about every Wiki article of substance, all with citations to sources available to any and all to find if they are diligent in their research, this aspect rounds out the story in my perspective. As a historian, I have never seen primary sources characterized as being a questionable thing as they seem to be for Wiki, in historical research they are simply the gold standard. That being said, per the Wiki definition, I don't see the abundance of primary sources mentioned - I see legitimate sources of publicly-available information and I have included a very significant number of newspaper articles as resources. A reason for including the literary correspondence then is to further support the secondary source or 3rd party availability of information regarding Sloane's work. Finding information that specifically details the contributions of editors to the literary world is actually rather difficult I have found and yet they are indeed notable when you look at the sum total of their references and so I have added in the citation quotes (not in the prose) information that supports said contributions - how else would one do it otherwise when establishing notability? I have included far more than simply passing mentions about Sloane. It has been my intention to spotlight an editor who I think has obviously made some important contributions. What I have done per this conversation is drop the Literary Correspondence to a subheading at the very bottom of the article, under See Also, along with his family history which is absolutely fascinating in my view. As well, I find archival collections of papers to be fascinating, others may as well, I know that historians certainly do and Wiki provides an interesting look at many historical figures. I understand the concept of summary but why in the world would abundant detail ever be a bad thing? Correct, I have been contributing extensively to Sloane stuff, not going to be interrogated about it, not a conflict of interest (interesting that term being applied to work being done for free by the way!), simply a very long and interesting story. Anyway, this was a nice reminder to stop spending nearly so much time working on Wiki when all of that work can just be wiped away in a split second while also being reprimanded by whom, exactly? Cheers indeed. Ilikewiki2020 (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Ilikewiki2020

Mr. Soul!
Hi Animalparty, I first want to thank you for your feedback to me. Whether I agree or not, I always try to have an open mind to get a better understanding of what is being conveyed to me. With that said, You don't know me, so I may just another username to you. However, since I have been at home due to covid-19, I started editing pages. Editing and creating pages for mainly legendary Classic Soul/R&B artists of the 60's 70's and 80's, who deserve to have their legacy preserved. I am very passionate about that era of artists who had gold and platinum albums back then, but didn't get the respect nor the money they deserved for their huge contribution to the music industry. I see a need and I give my unpaid time to create pages and/or update for those who are very much deserving. I see that your comments on the history pages implies that I am trying to promote, advertise and as you suggested, use as a soapbox. As far as my intentions, none of that is true. MR. SOUL! happens to be about the music I am passionate about and I was surprise there wasn't a page when I went to google it. I then looked at other pages for their formats. I looked at The Godfather, my favorite movie as a reference and saw that there was a critical reception section with lengthy reviews. I took that as okay, I can post reviews for the film. I didn't use the whole review just a couple of lines from each of the 6 critics. That is what you removed. I don't have a problem with it being removed, however I did that section because I thought it was okay. Now I know it is not.

You removed "The Movie" from the title of the page Mr. SOUL! The Movie, which I was glad. I was going to request the removal of it, because after further research, I saw that "The Movie" wasn't part of the official name, but was used on social media, on posters and on some of the newspaper articles. I am however, confused as to why you Changed SOUL! to Soul! Mr. SOUL! capitalized is the name of the film. If you can answer that for me I would appreciate it.

I started the page after reading an article that stated Ellis Haizlip as huge as he was didn't have a Wikipedia page. However, he did have one, Although it was a little weak considering his body of work. Since he had one, I figured I would started the Mr. SOUL! page and then that lead into me starting a page for the filmmaker Melissa Haizlip. This wasn't on my radar until last Friday. I wanted to create more pages for top 40 R&B/Soul albums and 45 records.

I saw your comment about Trying to disguise Melissa page as a Mr. SOUL! page. I wouldn't have any reason to do that when I already created a page for Mr. SOU!. You then stated on the comments of Ellis Haizlip page, (paring back undue coverage of the documentary film: this article is about Haizlip, not PR for his niece or the film). I wasn't doing PR for his niece, I am not paid by anyone. If you look at the pages I have created and/or edited, you will see the different pages I am on. The film is totally about the television show SOUL! and Ellis Haizilp, so I felt a need to include the film about him on his page. Even while doing Mr. SOUL!'s page I saw that singer Lalah Hathaway didn't have a photo on that page, so here I go looking for a photo of her that I took in 2018. I saw a need that I could fix and I did it. I shouldn't take your comments personal, but I don't want to be tagged as someone who is promoting or advertising when it isn't true. I thought, if it is fact and you can source it, then it was okay. However, I saw your comment above responding to another person where you referenced, WP:NOTEVERYTHING: {{xt|Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful... I got that immediately. I was a little more upset about your side comments, until I saw that response. From your perspective and position, one might think that I was maybe promoting. I was just hyped about doing my first film page, which turned into doing Melissa Haizlp page, which turned into adding content to Ellis's page and a comment on SOUL!'s page. I thought it was appropriate and needed.

The bottom line is that I wasn't promoting, advertising and/or on a soapbox and I don't want to be labeled as such, because my heart is in what I am doing, free of charge. It is still all a learning experience for me.

Thank you in advance for your time. Vannessajg (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! Just posting here in passing, as I started the Ellis Haizlip article a couple of months ago.   I'm more than happy to help out with improving music articles, especially on the areas you're interested in.  We generally don't repeat information from one article in a different article - that is what WP:LINKS are for.   So far as the article title is concerned, the guidance we follow is at WP:NCCAPS, so {{U|Animalparty}} was quite right to make the move.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Good morning, thank you for the information and your offer to help with the areas of my interests. I will converse with you on your page.Vannessajg (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

"Complete list of Grewia species" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Complete list of Grewia species. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 12:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Flora of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands


A tag has been placed on Category:Flora of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"Suffragist" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Suffragist. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 21 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Morris (doctor)
— Maile (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Frances Theresa Peet Russell
You made great additions to the article. It looks much better. SL93 (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you interested in a DYK credit for Roberta Arnold? SL93 (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem! Sure, I'll take a DYK credit for Arnold. Thanks. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. I added it. SL93 (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Presidential cabinets
Hi Animalparty, thanks for your addition of a hat note to the Presidential cabinets article. I agree the title isn't ideal. Do you think the German name should be used instead? Or maybe an add-on like "of the Weimar Republic" could be useful? Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NatureServe logo.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:NatureServe logo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Roberta Arnold
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

University of Minnesota Law School alumni
Why was Category:University of Minnesota Law School alumni removed from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_McConnell_and_Jack_Baker#Birth_of_America%27s_first_same-sex_marriage --Y6f&#38;tP4z (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it only appears to apply to Jack Baker (activist), not the married couple. See Categorizing redirects --Animalparty! (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Y6f&#38;tP4z (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Help with A Wiki Article!
Hi Animalparty!

I am a student who is new to Wikipedia. One of my courses consists of editing and updating the Geophilus Flavus Wikipedia page, I was wondering if you would be able to provide me with some feedback or suggestions to help me improve this page, as I've noticed you are a part of the Anthropods Wikiprojects. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!

--Witchruby (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Edna Patricia O'Keefe source
Hi there. Thanks for correcting the name. Could you please add a citation for that info, because the cited reference uses the name Ednamay Graham. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * . Done! Another source is Stars of the Radio (1932). For what it's worth, there is a primary source referring to whom might be the same person: an 'Edna May O'Keefe' born ca. 1912 living in San Francisco with occupation "radio artist" in the 1930 census, but from what I've seen in casual googling, most published secondary sources seem to use "Edna O'Keefe" or "Edna Patricia O'Keefe" (who, after divorcing Graham, married KFRC manager Harrison Holliway). Finding real names (as well as birth dates) for show business people can be tricky: seems everyone has a stage name, and lies about their age! --Animalparty! (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice work! What a confusing tangle!4meter4 (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Flora Kaai Hayes.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Flora Kaai Hayes.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Edwards Davis
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas Wade
When Nightheron says "his part was extensively discussed at the talk-page, and it was pointed out that this book is what greatly contributed to Wade's notability" what that really means is a handful of editors refused to compromise or listen to any other editors concerns. I pointed out exactly what you did, that this level of detail is inappropriate for a biography to no avail. If you want to try and take it up again, ill support your edits, but be prepared for some difficulty. Thanks. Bonewah (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that accidental deletion on the Christiane Northrop talk page
I don't know how I managed to do that. I also don't know why your correspondent insists on ignoring the rationale you have offered and instead imputing to you motives that you have not expressed. Good luck. -- Jibal (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no problem. I think I correctly restored the discussion, feel free to check and make sure I didn't accidently clip anything of yours when I restored. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry
I didn’t spot that we were on the Michael Brake page. The risks of mobile editing, I suppose. Wouldn’t have happened on a computer.  Schwede 66  17:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No worries. Enjoy your day. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice
This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at. Nardog (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Professional editor?
While I don't disagree with the substance this edit, your edit summary suggests you are a professional editor. Does WP:PAID apply or was this a poor choice of words? Toddst1 (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I have never been paid for a single edit. I am not a professional writer, but I stand by my words. I have however taken high school and college courses in composition, and know what is bad writing and what is good writing. I have also read many encyclopedias in my time, and know how encyclopedic writing should look. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Got it. Have a good weekend. Toddst1 (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Journal article protection
Hi Animalparty! I noticed your comment regarding the protection of several journal articles on JzG's talk page. Currently he isn't editing - I'll give it a week to see if he returns, as I think he should have first call, but if he isn't back I'll remove the protection. - Bilby (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Respectful Insolence
In regard to your edits on Michael Klaper, Respectful Insolence is used on other BLPs as a source. I am leaning towards removing it on BLPs but it is seen as a reliable source by many. I think we should remove it on the BLPs but leave it on other articles like germ theory denialism. What do you think about that? Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be removed from other BLPs, and assessed case-by-case basis in other articles, mindful of WP:PROPORTION, WP:WEIGHT, etc. For instance, even if Gorksi and Novella have written a lot (freely available online) on the topic of germ theory denialism, name dropping them in prose seems unwarranted, and citing them instead of more scholarly sources would be sub-optimal. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Jacquelyn Reingold
What do you mean by "to avoid ghettoization in gender-exclusive categories"? SL93 (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:GHETTO (part of Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality), as well WP:DUPCAT and the templates at the top of Category:American women screenwriters, etc. People can be placed into gender-specific categories, but should generally not be exclusively in them. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will keep that in mind. Diffusing, non-diffusing, subcategories, etc...I never did like adding categories to articles even though I understand the need. SL93 (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Carl Oglesby
Thanks for cropping the photo of Carl Oglesby, it looks much better! Neighborhood Review (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Discriminating verbal attacks are NOT opinions.
Just letting you know, after you said "everyone is entitled to their own opinions." Lostfan333 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Millipedes
Animalparty, thank you for you all your great invertebrate, arthropod, and millipede contributions! Aggyrolemnoixytes (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words! Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Rafter Romance (1933) still 1.jpg File:Mort Mills and Paul Newman (Torn Curtain).jpg
Hello Animalparty, Can you please do a cropped version of this files to only show the images of American actor and director Norman Foster and American actor Mort Mills (just crop to show the entire left side of both images). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.188.212.86 (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

ANI - User 47.157.129.133
You may want to contribute to the ANI discussion about user 47.157.129.133 since you were previously involved in the user's talk page with warnings or notices. 2603:8000:A501:9B00:4425:751C:D9BD:7885 (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Harry Lambert (journalist) page
Hi Animalparty. This page had five more sources justifying its existence prior to an anonymous attack in early September 2021.

Those users cut relevant secondary sources and then added unsourced statements about the subject, until they were removed by an editor under WP:V.

As WP:BLP says, "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects."

The justification for this entry was based on the relevance given the subject by these sources. e.g. A piece by BBC Media Editor Amol Rajan named the subject's work as among their top five pieces of the year.

The subject's parenting has also been made central to the entry by said anonymous users, but it is not clear why – per WP:BLP: "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources... the presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects."

The subject writes cover stories for the New Statesman, in the course of which he landed the first global interview with Yanis Varoufakis in 2015, re-reported globally, eg in NY Times. More recently the subject was the first to interview in print Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey and BBC Director General Tim Davie. Labour leader Keir Starmer was also recently interviewed by the subject.


 * The sources you mention here and that are currently or previously used in the article Harry Lambert (journalist) are predominantly passing mentions, primary sources (written by the author), affiliated sources (written by the subject's employer) or self-published sources (tweets, personal blogs). The fact that one BBC editor thought one of Lambert's pieces was commendable is insufficient on its own to demonstrate notability. If the subject has not received significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then it is likely too soon for the subject to be have a stand-alone encyclopedia article, per the General Notability Guideline and Notability guidelines for people. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ,

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. 04:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Re Dinah John
Hi Animalparty, good to see you around. Your point here is well taken, and I've made some stabs at reducing reliance on Hauptman. However it's hard since Laurence M. Hauptman is probably by a good measure the expert on the topic. What do you think about the article now? Eddie891 Talk Work 13:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Taner Edis for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Taner Edis 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 Articles for deletion/Taner Edis 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. Santacruz &#8258;  Please tag me!  23:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent comment on WP skepticism
Just wanted to thank you for your well-written comment in the project's talk page, and the thank you button just wouldn't be enough. You described the issue affecting a large number of skeptic BLPs very eloquently. I hope you don't mind me quoting your statement when useful in the future. Santacruz &#8258;  Please ping me!  01:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I've been meaning to write a more lengthy stand-alone post summarizing the issue to post on the WP Skepticism page, with more examples, and maybe I will someday. I hope WP Skeptic regulars take it as constructive criticism and don't get offended. Bias and favoritism can creep in even with the best of intentions, and COI need not necessarily be invoked, as I discussed in my comments at the Michael Shermer discussion. Cheers. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I won't join that discussion to avoid the possibility of it being considered canvassing. I agree with your arguments there and your intentions. Whenever interacting with these fans of skepticism (idk how else to call them) I frequently think of this essay by on the radicalization of users that spend years fighting against fringe and POV editors. Many of these skeptic editors are highly valuable to the project but perhaps in the decade+ they've edited criticism of skeptics has become a sore spot. I hope to read your post on skepticism some day :)  Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  08:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How about just calling "them" Wikipedia editors. You know like real people. I think it's not a great idea to try to us vs them people. Whatta ya think? Funny how someone has become an expert on what GSoW edits in such a short period of time, able to sum up the entire wealth of articles we have worked on and make such general sweeping statements. Thousands of pages have been edited by these "skeptic editors" possibly tens of thousands. Also to be really clear, I am a member of WikiProject Skepticism (and other projects) and there are a lot of people who are also members of WikiProject Skepticism and posting there is NOT canvassing by any stretch of the imagination. That is how we communicate on WikiProjects, it is encouraged. Sgerbic (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't consider replying to your statements in detail worth the time for either of us, . I really don't see what the point is in sending your message or what benefits it may have for anyone involved. You keep assuming that all pages about skeptics are written and WP:OWNed by GSOW or that my criticism of an article or multiple articles is based on my criticisms of GSoW. Neither of those statements is true. And seeing how you have as much experience here as you do and train as many editors as you do, you really should know the canvassing guideline better, which is not only about the method of contacting users but also the wording of the notice as well. If you have any issues with me or wish to have a discussion between us I recommend you use the processes available to you and/or go to my talk page rather than do so in another editor's talk page. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  19:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have so much on my plate I don't want to play this drama game with you. Sgerbic (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Please see talk-page (end) for Millipede
In Australia such a creature has been found at a depth of 60 meter in a drilling hole with 1306. (earlier record was 750) The article has a star and I'm not a real Wikipedian. 83.250.73.248 (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Eumillipes
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Paul D. Thacker
Thanks for all your work on the article. Rest easy knowing it's noticed and appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. There's still work to be done! --Animalparty! (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There always is! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Gertrude Webster
I am curious as to why you removed G.E.Linds from the name of the cactus on the page for Gertrude Webster? I thought that was the appropriate way to end a botanical name when indicating the author. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is the formal way to denote the full scientific name, but is not necessary in non-specialist prose. And it is redundant since the author (George Edmund Lindsay) is named in the preceding sentence. In any case, the author name should not in bold, except perhaps on the author's own article, per MOS:BOLD. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the clarification. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Rejuvenate WikiProject Skepticism
Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Secrets of the Psychics
Thanks for your assistance with this article. Unfortunately, the NY Times says I have reached my limit of reading so I can't see their article any more. So I can't look for how I might have misrepresented it or how to remedy it... can you be more specific? Also, I was disappointed that you thought the interview with Randi where he talked about his motivation was not worthy of inclusion. I thought it was pertinent, so I would be interested in your reasoning why you feel differently.--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * A little trick you can use to see the article, other than just trying to view it at archive.org, is to load the page and immediately press CTRL-A then CTRL-C, and then paste into notepad. If you're quick enough you can select all and copy before the bother box pops up, then paste the entire article to be read at your leisure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * you can read all NYT articles after 1980 through Gale using the Wikipedia Library. There's no images but they do include the full text. Just yesterday I read an interesting piece on how teachers are dealing with the pandemic in the US. Hope this helps :) A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 09:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Possible help/advice
Hello! I have noticed that you made a slight revision to an article I'm editing as part of a university assessment, Peter Nicol Russell. Would you be interested in providing some pointers to how I can improve the article more? It would be amazing to get your evident wealth of experience editing Wikipedia. Thanks in advance! Chasseur99 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"La Nueva" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect La Nueva and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 9 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Danubeball (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Cain and Serenade
I do not disagree with you that my summary is long. I had the same response with editors on B. Traven's The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. The "long plot" notice has been up over 3 years, with no significant effort to revise the summary. If you have read Traven's novel, your will see that it would be difficult to abbreviate the plot summary without doing injustice to the story. Same is true of Cain's Serenade.

I do not believe that the existing plot summary has any deficiencies in terms of "Readability", do you? My approach in writing the summary was to favor this aspect, and not an arbitrary limit in terms of kilobytes. At all events, I don't see how the summary can be shortened without reducing it to merely a "thumbnail" sketch. The notice will remain, but I think its a distraction when readers visit the article. What say you? --CerroFerro (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Excessive length is a hinderance to readability, especially in an encyclopedia that should summarize, not teach or present the work. I'm not very active in literary articles, but a thumbnail sketch is probably fine: if it's too long, people won't bother to read it, so why even make an article? There is lots of extraneous fluff that can be excised from both articles, from filler like "To Dobbs' dismay..." and "As night falls..." to entire paragraphs. I'd say minimize details, don't try to capture the literary tone of the source. Focus on large scale plot points (for instance a paragraph or two at most summarizing each chapter or major element): minor elements and characters can be mentioned or elaborated in reception or analysis sections on an as-needed basis. How to write a plot summary has some examples, and this website has a brief summary of Serenade. You you might look to summaries of the works in literary journals or other encyclopedias, CliffsNotes, etc. or Wikipedia plot summaries in Odyssey, The Lord of the Rings, War and Peace, as models to help pare down unessential elements (Featured-Article and Good-Article Class novels will probably have some of the best examples to follow). Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Animalparty - Thank you for your comments. I don't disagree with you on several points, but I contest a couple things. Your "why make an article?" is unfounded. I have also included well-sourced sections on Critical Analysis, Publication background, Style/Theme and Film Adaptions. As to any effort on my part to "capture the literary tone" of the article is puzzling. You simply have to read a few pages of the novels by Cain to see just how unwarranted that remark is. I have my own objective approach to writing summaries that I hope are literate, but never in the style of the author ; it's simply impossible with a writer like Cain, or B. Traven for that matter. Perhaps an interested editor can remove any "filler" I've introduced without, however, violating the story line as it was written. I shall, in future, do my best to keep the summary length to a minimum. --CerroFerro (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I started a new RFC on list of minority governors on the talk page.
Hello I started a new talk page on the RFC, since you are a regular there I was wondering if you could contribute your opinions to it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C80B:2D00:44D9:A6D5:9499:B1E7 (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:C80B:2D00:4812:C99C:7BAD:92EE (talk)

On William P. Gottlieb You Removed that He Left His Work To the Public
For the article on William P. Gottlieb you took off a (cited, so presumably true) comment that Mr. G. left his photos to the public for free use. It seems to me that's relevant, it has to do with his enduring place in cultural history. Why not take out that he went to Leigh University or that the Canadian Film Board gave him an award for his filmstrips. And heck, worth noting that it could be especially relevant to readers of this encyclopedia, one of whose pillars is free use of info. So I think you should put it back. If you want change the section title from "Legacy" to "Photos in Public Domain" or just put the info about public domain into his bio, great. You could even write back to me and say "OK, hotshot, you put it back" and I will. But your edit reduces what people can easily know about Gottlieb and that seems to be not helpful to other readers. HighAtop94 (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * OK, I was bold and put back that mention that he left his photos in the public domain. Not intending to undermine you or anything, presumably you spend less time thinking about William Gottlieb's Wikipedia page than I do. What do you do with all that free time? HighAtop94 (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Ladislaja Harnoncourt
We had already a discussion about the "notability" of Ladislaja Harnoncourt (in the DYK nomination). Sure she would probably not have an article if she didn't have these prominent children, and not many "independent sources" were written at her time about women who raised children. However, the alternative to have the details of her life in all biographies of children she raised - four of seven covered already in articles - seems not a good alternative. I'm not arguing that she was from highest nobility (but she was). I don't like article tags, very generally so, as discrediting our content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What details of her life? That she was a good singer and a nurse? That could easily be mentioned in any biography of independently notable kin. I don't think lowering standards is a good way to improve representation of women on Wikipedia. The only person who appears to have written about the subject in any depth (and it doesn't appear to be much) is her own son Nikolaus. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Her son wrote about her not in private letters, but a published book. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Daniel Estulin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Page Mention, NPR, trivial
I don't care deeply, but just a small point that the citation I added and you deleted...it's not the mention on the page that is the thing here, it's the discussion on the linked interview. It is still a bit brief. The interviewee mentions they are reading a few books, how those books make them feel, think, then lists them. So it's up for debate how to interpret that, I think. I interpret the proceeding paragraphs to be about the book. But I don't really care. I just don't want you to think it's just the passing mention in writing that I was citing. CT55555 (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I listened to that full extended interview, and unless I misheard, Page goes into varying levels of details on several books/authors, but only mentions the title Intelligence in Nature once by name at the end, without any elaboration. I don't think it's encyclopedic to include "actor Elliot Page read this book and liked it" in any article except perhaps Page's. If Page was a renowned book critic, and listed it in a top 10-list (with or without additional commentary), or actually got around to adapting it, that might be a different story. But that a notable person might like a book isn't on itself grounds for inclusion or citing. Cheers! --Animalparty! (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fair. I listened to it again more carefully a few times over and you are correct. CT55555 (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 15:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello ,

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 Special:ListUsers/patroller New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 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 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 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Hello ,

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 at the end of May.
 * Backlog status

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.

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).

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.
 * Backlog drive

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.
 * TIP – New school articles

There is a new template available,, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
 * Misc

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.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing 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.
 * Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Death date
Thanks for adding the death date to Arthur Samuel Garretson. I had so much trouble trying to find that information. SL93 (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem! Happy to help! --Animalparty! (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
Hello ,

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators and, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
 * Backlog status

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.


 * Coordination: and  have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out.  will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.


 * Open letter to the WMF: The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.


 * TIP - Reviewing by subject: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.


 * New reviewers: The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing 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.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

"Quartz (magazine)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Quartz (magazine) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 11 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message
Hi ,

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
 * Invitation

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP Award for 2018
Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2018. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We have just caught up with giving out deserved barnstars. Also, we notice you haven't been very active here recently, and hope you will consider increasing your participation. The backlog is relatively high and we could really use your help. Regardless, thanks again for your past effort. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Fernandez image
I'd like to briefly explain why I reverted you about the image that you restored. There's a very long and ugly history of sockpuppetry and block evasion, and the socks are using the page as a WP:NOTWEBHOST. This really is something that falls squarely under WP:BANREVERT. I know you restored it in good faith, so I wanted to explain. If you want me to provide more details, please ask. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This should probably be discussed on the article talk page, not here. Others may wish to offer an opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

WP no forum, no anarchy
Didn't know that, so...But if you ( "you", admins, editors, whatever) are really serious about writing/ building an encyclopedia: throw out 999 per 1.000 articles on pop- music and 9.999 of 10.000 articles on sport- persons. No serious encyclodedia has that many articles (in %) about, in effect, nonsense. The recent death of Kripke, a world- class philosopher was not noted on the main page, but that of x obscure non- entities. I, personally, like the entries on Rock-music, and would miss them, also don't mind boring non- entities too much; but I also do not think WP should or could be a Brockhaus.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure why you directed this comment to me (I'm not at an admin). But I do think the ratio of articles to competent editors is getting worse over time. As for Kripke, it looks like his article and recent death notice has been nominated to appear on the main page, but needs a bit of cleanup first: see In_the_news/Candidates. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, so there must have been a misunderstanding. I came back to Wikipedia, because I read a very nasty comment on it - by a rightwinger, I guess, which I found highly unfair. But: nearly all the people I knew and worked with (mostly on German Wikipedia) are gone. And those were good people. I guess, some just got older, etc. And so on and so forth. Thanks and See You!--Ralfdetlef (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Lafayette Cartee Assessmant
You recently assessed new Lafayette Cartee article as class. What do I need to do to get this article up a ? According to Content assessment page, articles are "substantial but is still missing important content … Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems." I thought the article was pretty comprehensive, but I’m willing to spending time improving it. Just so I'm not spinning my wheels, can you give me some insight as to where it needs help. Also, according to WikiProcect Oregon assessment guide, under green People bar it says: "State-level politicians … should remain in the Low category unless they served in multiple places …, or had a leadership role in their branch (Chief Justice, Speaker of the House, etc.) then up to Mid." Since Cartee was Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives, it appears his article should be given "Middle" importance rating. Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022
Hello , Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to ), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also. Software news: and  have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved. Suggestions:
 * There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
 * Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
 * Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
 * This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog: Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!


 * Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.