User talk:Bennv123/Archive 6

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sanne Keizer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marrit Leenstra ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Sanne_Keizer check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Sanne_Keizer?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 09:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17


Hello ,


 * News
 * The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.


 * Discussions of interest
 * Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
 * db-blankdraft was merged into G13 (Discussion)
 * A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
 * There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.


 * Reminders
 * NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD  because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.


 * NPP Tools Report
 * Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
 * copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
 * The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828 Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review. Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I hope you can help
Hello: I see that two years ago you warned User:Galactikapedia about his incorrect redirections. He is doing the same thing again, hundreds of them! I left a message on his discussion page, but probably something else needs to be done. Any suggestions? Thanks. --Polinizador (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. My previous warning to this user came about because they were creating redirects too carelessly such that many of their redirects unintentionally had the wrong target article. I'm not familiar with the policies and guidelines regarding species/genus on Wikipedia though, so I can't really comment on the appropriateness of their recent redirects. I see that User:Plantdrew has echoed your concerns on the user's talk page. In my experience, he is very knowledgeable on the issues surrounding species/genus on Wikipedia and I think he will be of far more help to you than I would be in this case. Alternatively, the editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals could also be of more assistance. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will follow your suggestions and contact those wikiprojects. Some of the redirects of a couple of years ago are terrible. Look up Ephemera annandalei. It is a species of mayfly. He created numerous similar redirects on the page Ephemera (mayfly). It would take a lot of time to clean up the mess he left behind. Thanks again. --Polinizador (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at all the recent algae redirects they've created, I think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Algae will be more appropriate after all. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

March 19 Planned Parenthood notification
Hi, I'm brand new to Wikipedia editing, so apologies if I'm doing this user talk thing wrong. The information I added to the page was a numerical statistic and therefore I believe it is not biased and is simply a sharing of information. MaiMas52 (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Mai
 * Hi. The issues with your edit are: 1) 2ndvote is not a reliable or neutral source and 2) the phrase "taken over ... lives due to abortion" is not neutral. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Bennv3771 (talk) Hi! I have fixed the edit by adding the statistic from Planned Parenthood's publicly accessible PDFs. MaiMas52 (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Sanne Keizer
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect Revision
I think that you would find that it does include needed information for an encyclopedia. The link takes you to a page that provides correct statistics on the issue that the article itself notes. If the page was to brutal, may I suggest that it would be to unnecessary for planned parenthood to be featured in such recognized glory for giving "women their right to choose." I'll stay away from personal morals and ethics, but I would once again like to clarify that it does not violate the community guidelines, I would be more than pleased to see it reappear in the next 24 hours before we have to start sending complaints for personal issues in the article. Sincerely, CelloIsLife101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelloIsLife101 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

it's what they deserves — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.235.119 (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect Response; Supporting bias statement
"If the page was to brutal, may I suggest that it would be to unnecessary for planned parenthood to be featured in such recognized glory for giving "women their right to choose." May I state, it is irresponsible, unethical, unprofessional, and all together quite brutal to watch you say you aren't biased, then make statements like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelloIsLife101 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Statements like what? I didn't write the statement you've quoted... you did. Bennv3771 (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've also never claimed to not have any biases. Please stop attributing things I didn't say to me. Bennv3771 (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Rise of Kyoshi


Hello, Bennv3771. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Rise of Kyoshi".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Meszzy2 (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Rise of Kyoshi


Hello, Bennv3771. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Rise of Kyoshi".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Exodus
How long do I have to wait for it to be resolved? As per BRD, my edits should not be re-verted as they did improve the article. They are taken almost verbatim from scholarly sources. The user, PiCo, who re-verted them did so without any valid or reasonable explanation other than he didn't like them because it goes against his anti-Biblical bias. The form he edited, which is what is there now, has claims which are not supported or mentioned by the citations listed. He wants anything removed showing the support for the historical core the Exodus is based upon, widely accepted by most scholars. He has done this before and I am fed up with it. The version I edited should be the default to be re-verted to, not his. Epf2018 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. As your edits were disputed by another editor presumably in good faith, a talk page discussion should be started (as you have already done). The norm seems to be to wait about a week to give interested editors the chance to join in the discussion. If no one, including the editor who disputed your edits, replies within a reasonable time frame, you can safely restore your edits. The version that PiCo reverted to was the longstanding "status quo", which is usually the version that is reverted to when there is a content dispute. It is frustrating to get reverted, but if your edits do accurately reflect scholarly consensus (I have no opinion on the matter as I haven't looked into the cited refs), then it will hopefully not take long for other editors to come to a consensus on the talk page. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Benny3771, why did you revert my edits on the Exodus page? The changes I made were completely justified, as several of the claims made in the article do not cite proper sources. I do not wish to start an edit war, so could you please state why you disagree with the changes I made? Jgriffy98 (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I explained my reasons in my original edit summary. Bennv3771 (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but I am new to Wikipedia. I can't seem to navigate very well just yet. Could you please help me find the summary you're referring to? I clicked on your link, but didn't see your reasons on the page. Jgriffy98 (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see them now. Jgriffy98 (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Your reasons for reverting my edits are completely ludicrous. So, are you satisfied with inaccurate sources? My point was that the sources are invalid, because they do not cite any scientific surveys which verify their claims that there's a consensus among scholars. I don't give two shits if that's good enough for Wikipedia. If the sources are misleading or inaccurate, then they need to be changed. There's no reason to disregard academic integrity just because a claim meets Wikipedia's standards. Jgriffy98 (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not how Wikipedia determines reliability. We do not require reliable sources to show their "evidence" or "scientific surveys", and sources are not disregarded as "inaccurate" or "invalid" simply because of that. Likewise if a reliable source claims an individual was born on 5 June 2000, we do not require them to cite a birth certificate as evidence. Since you're editing Wikipedia, you have to "give two shits" about Wikipedia's standards and policies, otherwise you're welcome to edit other online encyclopedias or create your own blog etc that conform to your standards of "academic integrity". In this particular case, if there are other reliable sources that disagree with the claims made in the Wikipedia article, then please cite them at Talk:The Exodus. Bennv3771 (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

"If there are other reliable sources that disagree with the claims made in the Wikipedia article, then please cite them." I'm absolutely positive that my citations would immediately be deleted. Any sources that support a different narrative on this page will not last long, regardless if they're reliable or not. The entire Exodus page is one of the most biased Wikipedia pages that I have ever seen. There's literately no effort to present arguments from the other side. The entire article seems to be pushing the narrative that the Exodus story has no real historical basis, and that the event itself is mainly a work of literary fiction. It's blatantly obvious that the primary editors for the Exodus page are biased in favor of secular or anti-theistic narratives. Where are all the arguments from the many scholars who do believe the historicity of the Exodus is valid? Jgriffy98 (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "I'm absolutely positive that my citations would immediately be deleted." I don't see why they would be; Wikipedia doesn't allow users to edit another user's talk page edits (including deleting them) except in extreme cases. "Where are all the arguments from the many scholars who do believe the historicity of the Exodus is valid?" Again, please start a discussion and share these reliable sources at Talk:The Exodus. Wikipedians aren't necessarily experts historians after all and you cannot assume that other editors are already aware of these sources and have chosen to ignore them. It doesn't seem fair to complain that many reliable sources are being intentionally ignored and then not provide any examples of these sources. Bennv3771 (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, do consider if "the other side" represents a WP:FRINGE view as far as consensus among reliable sources is concern. Wikipedia doesn't present arguments from the other side if it is WP:UNDUE and creates a false balance. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case here, just that this is another possibility to consider. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

"We do not require reliable sources to show their 'evidence' or 'scientific surveys', and sources are not disregarded as 'inaccurate' or 'invalid' simply because of that." Do you really not understand the stupidity of what you just said? If a source does not provide empirical evidence for the claims that it makes, then it is, by definition, a non-reliable source. If an author happens to be an authority on the subject, that person's words should not be taken at face-value. Scholars can be biased just as much as anyone else. When I say that the source is "invalid", I'm not necessarily saying that its claims are factually incorrect. I'm merely pointing out that the claims made by the author are not backed by any empirical data. Also, my suspicion that other sources are being intentionally ignored stems from two reasons: 1.) I have seen many other editors make similar accusations; 2.) The Exodus article is completely devoid of any counter-narratives. They weren't left out by coincidence. Why is it that practically all of the arguments on the page are geared towards a single narrative?
 * Your definition of a "non-reliable" source is not Wikipedia's definition of a "non-reliable" source. As we are editing Wikipedia, it is Wikipedia's definition that matters, not yours (or mine for that matter), regardless of how stupid you think it is. Again, if you or any other editor with similar accusations have reliable sources to support your claims, then please share them at Talk:The Exodus (not on my talk page please). Otherwise, the Wikipedia article will continue to take the word of the cited scholars, and complaining on my talk page won't change anything. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." If that is the case, then the Biblical narrative is not a "fringe theory". There are over 2 billion Christians in the world, as well as over 14.5 million Jews. The Exodus story is a mainstream belief among the world population. In comparison, atheists/anti-theists make up an extremely small portion portion of the world population. Therefore, if anything, the secular/anti-theistic narratives should be labeled as fringe theories. Jgriffy98 (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Mainstream views in its particular field" -- mainstream here doesn't refer to the general public as explained at Mainstream. It refers to the consensus of reliable sources in a particular field. In this case, it would be the consensus of accredited historians and their peer-reviewed publications. Likewise, even if every non-scientist believes the Earth is flat, Wikipedia will still consider the Flat Earth to be a fringe view so long as scientists agree that the Earth is not flat, even though there are far more non-scientists than scientists. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, no reliable evidence has been provided as to the scholarly consensus of the Exodus. Do you not see how misleading and manipulative you are being? Millions of people read Wikipedia everyday to get informed, yet no one is making it clear to them that Wikipedia's definition for "reliable sources" is extraordinary. It needs to be made clear to visitors of the site that Wikipedia has a flawed and impractical way of defining what is or isn't a reliable source. But there isn't any disclaimer though, is there? It seems you're satisfied by the fact that Wikipedia has no credibility on this matter. You're only using Wikipedia's guidelines as an excuse to justify invalid claims. During this entire exchange, you never seemed to care about weather or not the claims were actually valid or not. The only thing that matters to you is weather or not the sources meet Wikipedia's standards. Do you actually believe the claims made by those sources, or are you just trying to push an anti-religious narrative? Jgriffy98 (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course I care about the validity of Wikipedia's claims. That is why I keep asking you to provide reliable sources that support your claims (but please do so at Talk:The Exodus, not on my talk page). Three reliable sources have been cited to support the claim that "The consensus of modern scholars is that the Bible does not give an accurate account of the origins of Israel". Why should Wikipedia take your word over the word of peer-reviewed historians when it come to the subject of world history? Again, Wikipedia accepts the word of experts at face-value if other experts do not disagree. If you'll like to see their "evidence", I suggest you contact these historians directly.


 * If you have actual reliable sources that dispute the claim, then please share them at Talk:The Exodus. Otherwise, if you are just here to vent and complain, I'm not interested in carrying on this conversation anymore as it will not lead anywhere. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Normally, when I get into a somewhat-heated exchange like this, I try really hard to end things on a good note. Conversing with you, however, has been extremely annoying and frustrating. I grow weary of this discussion, so I'm going to end it. You say that, "complaining on my page won't change anything", but, seeing as how you're the one who deleted my edits, I think that talking to you on your page was necessary. It is abundantly clear to me that you're just an anti-theist who is completely apathetic to academic integrity and facts. Wikipedia may label these as reliable sources, but to say that they are "reliable" is factually incorrect. If Wikipedia says that the Earth is flat, that doesn't mean the Earth is really flat. What would you do then? Would you come back and be like "According to Wikipedia's guidelines, the Earth is flat, therefore, I actually believe and support the notion that the Earth is flat. I'm a guy who believes nonsense, as long as it is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia says that 2+2=5. I believe and support that notion because, according to Wikipedia's policies, 2+2 really does equal 5." Jgriffy98 (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I deleted your edit once. You restored it and I left it at that and made no attempts to delete it again, so I do not see why this extended conversation on my talk page was necessary. Are you trying to convince me not to delete your edits? Because I have already done just that. So yes indeed, "complaining on my page won't change anything". Bennv3771 (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And to answer your hypothetical question, no I wouldn't be like "According to Wikipedia's guidelines, the Earth is flat, therefore, I actually believe and support the notion that the Earth is flat. I'm a guy who believes nonsense, as long as it is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia says that 2+2=5. I believe and support that notion because, according to Wikipedia's policies, 2+2 really does equal 5", because there is no Wikipedia guideline that supports the claim that Earth is flat. Bennv3771 (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Listen pal, I really don't give a shit if you delete my edits. I honestly don't care enough to be offended by such a thing. I came on here because I enjoy talking about history and religion. I was hoping we could have a fun conversation about the Exodus, and weather or not the sources used were valid. Instead of engaging in a meaningful dialogue, however, you just came at me with, "According to Wikipedia's policies, bla bla bla bla bla. Wikipedia's guidelines, bla bla bla bla bla. Therefore, my edits were justified." You see what I mean? You didn't want to talk about weather or not the sources were valid. You deliberately avoided that conversation, and deferred to explaining Wikipedia's policy guidelines on what is or isn't a reliable source.
 * Wikipedia talk pages are NOT for having discussions that are not directly related to improving a Wikipedia article. If you want to have fun conversations about history, religion, the weather etc... you'll have to do it off-Wikipedia. See also WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOCIAL. Bennv3771 (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I also personally don't find being accused of "not understand[ing] the stupidity of what you just said"/"trying to push an anti-religious narrative"/"[being] an anti-theist who is completely apathetic to academic integrity and facts"/"[being] a guy who believes nonsense" etc to be fun. So I'm afraid you'll have to find someone else to have your idea of a fun conversation with. Bennv3771 (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I personally do not appreciate people shitting all over the Judeo-Christian faith. I personally don't like seeing biased Wikipedia articles pushing anti-religious nonsense. And I especially do not like seeing fellow Wikipedians defend baseless claims by citing "Wikipedia's version of truth." I'm not angry about it. I'm just disappointed. You clearly enjoy being an editor on Wikipedia. You're clearly willing to engage in conversations with your critics. And you clearly take your job as an editor very seriously. I commend you for all of that. That's why it disappoints me that you would fiercely defend something that ISN'T TRUE. And when I say "true" I mean the real definition of truth, not the Wikipedia definition of truth. I understand that I used way too much ad hominem during this exchange, and I apologize for that. It was very much uncalled for and unnecessary. Jgriffy98 (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Hillary and Clinton
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

ANI
You might be interested in this. --JBL (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Georgina Pazcoguin
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sanne Keizer
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sanne Keizer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sanne Keizer
The article Sanne Keizer you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sanne Keizer for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18


Hello ,

, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
 * Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
 * Reliable Sources for NPP

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
 * Backlog drive coming soon


 * News
 * Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.


 * Discussions of interest
 * A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
 * There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
 * What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

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

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sanne Keizer
The article Sanne Keizer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sanne Keizer for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Waste management in Egypt
Hi Bennv3771 - oh fantastic, thanks for suggesting the Draft page. Quick question, how did you manage to create that? I have several other students working on articles and I want to avoid causing more headaches for you. D.Thompson (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've created it for you here: Draft:Waste management in Egypt. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

To whom this may concern
I am emailing/ messaging regarding my editing on Leona Lewis' profile. I have changed the information regarding the Ivor Novello award, to the single, instead of stating Leona herself won. This was written after finding sources listing Leona Lewis A Moment Like This as the winner. It did not specify the writers name within the sources, only Leona Lewis. (The sources used were from the Ivors Offical page and the BBC, an article declaring the winners from 2007).

I apologise if I cited information incorrectly- I am new to Wikipedia, thus I am still learning how to use the editing processes.

Regards

A Cutts Ajcutts1992 (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

/* Eating */
Hi, Bennv3771. I am new to wiki and replaced dead link with link of seemanns butcheries (IMHO one of the best biltong producers in SA and I do not know them personally, just made shopping several times during my visits to Joburg) and my blog on site of SA hairpins where I want to popularize SA and its products. Is it better to have dead link? Pls do not revert my corrections. Thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marina African (talk • contribs) 14:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not the editor who reverted your edit. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks -- Left Wing Terrorism
That user that attempted to alter the Lest Wing Terrorism page appears to be a government agent living in Bangladesh out of an office at 72, Room:105, Satmasjid Road, Nizam Shankar Plaza, Dhanmondi. His or her edit history speaks volumes. :) Thanks for cleaning up that. SoftwareThing (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019


Hello ,

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important. Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR. The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever. NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so  you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations. Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for  the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging. Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway. School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * QUALITY of REVIEWING
 * Backlog
 * Move to draft
 * Notifying users
 * PERM
 * Other news

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

User who you gave a final warning to using personal insults.
See here:. - R9tgokunks   ⭕  05:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)