User talk:Bennv123/Archive 7

Approve Offsite Solutions Page
Hello Bennv3771,

Can I please request for the Offsite Solutions page to be published live?

Thanks.

JKutchera

JKutchera (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. I see that since Draft:Off Site Solutions was deleted, you've created Draft:Offsite Solutions and have tried to resolve the previous issues that led to the first draft being deleted. However, I'm afraid that I cannot publish Draft:Offsite Solutions on your behalf as I find that the new draft is still too promotional in its current state and needs to be rewritten from a more neutral point of view. For example, the article emphasizes minor awards that the company has won and uses non-neutral language like "a broad range ... to suit different building types..." that is sourced to a PR website (i.e. not reliable and independent). If and when you think this draft is ready to be published live, just click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the draft and a reviewer will assess it.
 * Please also be informed of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline and paid editing policy. If you are being paid by this company to write their Wikipedia article, you must disclose it by following these instructions carefully. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Why do you keep on blocking my editing?
Hello Bennv3771, I would like to ask you why you keep on not accepting my editing!I did what you said!Gave a valid reason for my editing in the editing summary and provided reliable sources that prove my statements' reliability. Although,you keep on blocking my editing! I have spent countless hours of searching about the certain topic and finding reliable sources. Why do you do that and what should I do in order for my editing to be accepted?

Thanks,

JupMc (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)JupiterMc

25/8/2019
 * As I explained on your talk page, forum/blog posts are not reliable sources and cannot be used as sources on Wikipedia. If you've spent countless hours searching on the topic and could only find posts on Quora/Deviantart/fansite forums to verify your content, then perhaps the content you are trying to add/change is not supported by reliable sources after all and thus should not be added to Wikipedia. Bennv3771 (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please also consider that Wikipedia is meant to neutrally reflect what reliable sources say. Editors are not to use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX by adding content with the goal of pushing a certain POV, and only then searching for sources to verify their POV after the fact. Bennv3771 (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Bennv3771,

You keep on preaching about how my sources are not reliable but have you checked the sources provided? The sources you provide are not reliable! The sources that refer to the statement "Turf Wars is a canonical continuation of the original series" have nothing to do with the statement! The first one is just an article from comicbook/tv that just says that "Turf Wars" shows Korra and Asami's first kiss! It does not say that is a canonical continuation. The second one is from cbr.com and it has nothing to do with "Turf Wars" since it refers to another comic not the one the wikipedia article is about! The sources would be reliable if they contained statements by the AUTHORS of the original series that characterize "Turf Wars" as a canonical continuation of "The Legend Of Korra". If you google it, however much you try to find that kind of statement from the authors, you will not find it, for the AUTHORS never said it is a canonical continuation! This is just a spontaneous conclusion! Also, the article overwhelms with generalization saying how everyone praises the integration of same sex relationships into the comics while there are NO SOURCES that prove the reliability of that statement! The truth is that it is a topic of major conflict! You can certify that if you search about it a little bit. Google it and you will came across with counteless sites that state how much they dislike the new addition! So not EVERYONE likes it! Even if the majority of the critics liked it (another statement that cannot be proven) it is of utmost significance to include the fans opinion! Also I am not the one aiming to push a certain POV since I just state facts that are not biased, not opinions like the ones the article contains and I am certainly not the one threatening to "block someone from editing" because I do not like the facts they provide. If you read my editing you will see that there is not a POV since I just state facts and not spontaneous conclusions. I do not aim to affect the readers' opinion, I just cannot stand misinformation and since wikipedia enables users to edit articles I thought it was the right thing to do to try and fix that. Wikipedia is supposed to be an online place where people from all around the world can share their knowledge. What is the point of enabling users to do that but accept only the "information" you like even when it is not based on solid evidence? What is the point of preaching to be a site that is based on the users' knowledge if there are people who CONTROL what will be posted and what will not? Who are you anyway? Why do you think you can keep others' mouths shut so that they cannot enrich the site with more information about a certain topic? The rumors about wikipedia's censorship incidents go rampant, I hope they are mistaken...Could please read my editing again? You will see that no personal opinion is included.

Thanks, JupMc (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)JupMc
 * The Comicbook.com article says: "The moment comes in The Legend of Korra: Turf Wars – Part One, a new in-canon graphic novel continuing Korra's story past the show's finale." I agree that the second cited reference doesn't explicitly verify the canonical status of the first comic series so I will remove it have replaced it. And no, Wikipedia does not require the creators to personally release statements verifying everything that reliable sources say. If the creators have contradicted what reliable sources say then that would be another issue, but they have not as far as I can tell. Your content needs to be verified by reliable sources. I have read and checked your sources and they are all posts made on internet forums by random people on the internet. None of them can be used as sources on Wikipedia. This is not my policy, this is Wikipedia's policy. Bennv3771 (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, I will try to find "reliable sources" that prove my statement's reliability.So, I need to find a site like comicbook/tv and not quora? Because both contain articles and reviews by users. I would really appreciate it if you explained to me what kind of source will be accepted. Also, about the generalization part, will you take it into cosnideration? I think it is a solid argument that appeals to the reality. The sources I selected show the fans POV that did not like the new adition. I could also add sources that show the POV of the fans that like it. Will that be okay?

Thanks,

JupMc (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)JupMc
 * They do not "both contain articles and reviews by users." If you wanted to, you could go to Quora right now, create a user account and "write" a review (a.k.a make a post). But even if you wanted to, you would not be able to do the same on Comicbook.com. That's the difference between a user-generated site (not an acceptable source on Wikipedia) and a website that hires staff to write its reviews (generally an acceptable source on Wikipedia). If it is not supported by a reliable source, then this "fans POV" you refer to cannot be added. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Similarly, online forums/social media sites that anyone on the internet can post to are user-generated content and are therefore not considered reliable. Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia because, as you pointed out, anyone can edit it. Hope this makes it clearer. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay,I get it now,thank you.I will try to find sources that are considered to be reliable by wikipedia

Thanks,

JupMc (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)JupMc

Hello Bennv3771, I did some research and found a source that is considered to be reliable according to wikipedia terms. It proves my statements' reliability and it is not a user-generated site but a website that hires staff to write its reviews.

https://sites.google.com/view/turf-wars-comics/home

I would really appreciate it if you check it out and tell me if it is okay now to publish my changes.

Thanks,

JupMc (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)JupMc
 * Hi, this new source you've found is a page on Google Sites. These are free websites that anyone with a Google account can create. It was not created by a genuine company that hires staff to write its reviews, but rather by someone on the internet with a Google account. Bennv3771 (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for responding JupMc (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)JupMc

Good evening, I found another source at wix.com that is not user-generated and is considered to be reliable by wikipedia terms, since "all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in this source are covered". Is everything okay now?

Thank you,

JupMc (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)JupMc
 * What is the website? Wix.com itself is not a publisher, it is a website building tool similar to Google Sites. It isn't considered a reliable source on its own because it doesn't publish any of its own content, it just provides the tools to let users create their own personal websites. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Self-published content such as personal websites/blogs are generally considered unreliable for the same reasons as user-generated sites. They have no reputation for accountability (no bosses or the like to answer to) or fact-checking. The exception is if the author of the personal website/blog is considered an established expert in the particular topic (as verified by reliable sources). Bennv3771 (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

May I ask you a question? You are just another user as me. What do you think gives you the right to threaten to "block someone from editing"? This is censorship you know. Do you really think is it ethical?

JupMc (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)JupMc
 * Yes I do think it is ethical. Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech. if you knowingly and repeatedly violate its policies and guidelines, you can be blocked from editing. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Who are you to take one's right for free speech? Also, it is not an opinion, they are facts and you ignore them because you do not like them! There are many people that agree with me and you just do what? Shut their mouths so that they will not be heard? The article is biased! Anyone can tell that! You know what? Thank you for responding all this time. I have nothing else to say. The rumors about Wikipedia's censorship are so true. I feel really disappointed. You know I can do the same to you right? There is a whole article on Wikipedia about that!!!! I do not do it though. Because I believe it is ethically wrong! I cannot ban you from editing! Wikipedia enables all users to do so. Who am I take that right from you? People like you support censorship! I do not understand why you do that and I really do not have to. Well, censorship it is.

Thanks, not thanks JupMc (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)JupMc
 * I suggest you read Free speech. I am not "blocking" your edits because I do not like them but because you have not presented any reliable sources to support your changes. Again, forum and blog posts are not reliable sources. If you are disappointed by Wikipedia's "censorship" and cannot abide by its policies and guidelines, then perhaps you should find another website/online encyclopedia to contribute to. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

That is actually a great suggestion!

Thanks, JupMc (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)JupMc

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello ,

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
 * Backlog

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
 * Coordinator

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for  making  the occasional  mistake while  others can learn from  their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
 * This month's refresher course

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
 * Deletion tags

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
 * Paid editing


 * Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
 * Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent  enhancements to  the New Pages Feed and  features in the Curation  tool, and there are still more to  come. Due to the wealth  of information  now displayed by  ORES, reviewers are strongly  encouraged to  use the system now rather than Twinkle; it  will  also  correctly  populate the logs.
 * Not English
 * A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
 * Tools

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number ones
My edits Is true as the Christmas number one is misleading as the sales doesn’t include Christmas Day taking up to the week before as the chart falls for the week but the sales and most important time the 25th Christmas is not included therefore must be a pre Christmas charts Town3bay (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please cite a reliable source that supports your claim that 25th Dec is not included. The 2009 Christmas no. 1 for example included sales from 20 December 2009 - 26 December 2009. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello ,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon. There are now holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action. Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays. Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox. Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards. Admin has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers. Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources. Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13. The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights. There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion. To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting the queue to 0
 * Coordinator
 * This month's refresher course
 * Tools
 * It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
 * It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
 * Reviewer Feedback
 * Second set of eyes
 * Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
 * Do be sure to have our talk page  on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
 * Arbitration Committee
 * Community Wish list

Yes, there is a secondary source.
SethRuebens (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)SethReubens 05/12/19SethRuebens (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Hi Benny,

Yes, there is a secondary source: https://twitter.com/raggedtrousered/status/1202261818045014016?

That is the Twitter account of Dr Steve Greenfield, Professor of Sports Law and Practice, Westminster Law School 4-12 Little Titchfield Street, London W1W 7BY.

A third source is the academically referenced video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B5szJBcFsk (references can be confirmed by Bath Spa University).

Thanks, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B5szJBcFsk

SethRuebens (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)SethReubens 05/12/19SethRuebens (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The tweet makes zero mention of Britannia and the linked youtube video is not a secondary source. The issue here isn't the accuracy of the claims, it is their significance. If no independent media/academic outlet has bothered reporting on these claims, then they are WP:UNDUE. Bennv3771 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Benny3771 here is a link to the lecture slides: https://prezi.com/p/brkuojtpqpob/for-prezi-video-scriptwriting-copyright/?present=1 - which specifically mention Britannia in their title. Members of the audience included law students and faculty members (including at least two professors). It is now in the academic record, and considering that Westminster University is a respected law school I cannot see how that is not significant. SethRuebens (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)SethRuebens 5 December 2019
 * Again, none of these are secondary sources. Thousands of lectures and seminars are made every day in respected Universities. That doesn't make every lecture significant/notable enough to be recorded in an online encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Have reliable secondary sources reported on these claims? Bennv3771 (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

History of the Catholic Church
According to the Catholic tradition, the history of the Catholic Church begins with Jesus Christ and his teachings (c. 4 BC – c. AD 30) and the Catholic Church is a continuation of the early Christian community established by the Disciples of Jesus.

The citation is incorrect. Read the article that is cited for this sentence Bennv3771 ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.204.252 (talk) 07:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not having this discussion with you again. You have been warned many times by multiple editors by now, so please do not resume your POV editing. Bennv3771 (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any further issues with History of the Catholic Church, I'd recommend you use the talk page (Talk:History of the Catholic Church) to discuss said issues first. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019


This year's Reviewer of the Year is. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
 * Reviewer of the Year

Special commendation again goes to who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to and  who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by.
 * Redirect autopatrol

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
 * Source Guide Discussion

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This month's refresher course

Happy New Year Bennv3771!
Happy New Year! Hello Bennv3771: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Cats (musical)
My issue with your edits is a simple grammatical one. "Cast" is a plural noun and can't be pluralised by adding an s. So "Notable cast members" is OK, "Notable cast" is clunky but passable. "Notable casts" makes no sense. Please make an appropriate choice without using the word "casts". Than you  Velella  Velella Talk 03:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Help
I know this is random but can you help me with this vandalism problem I'm having right now? I can't keep reverting these edits. Page is Pete Buttigieg 2020 presidential campaign. Editor is an IP address only. You can find their other edits too. ~ Σosthenes 12
 * Ok, I'll keep an eye on their edits. Bennv3771 (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ~ Σosthenes 12

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)

Wikipedia page
Hello! Let me preface this by saying I'm new to all of this so I may be going about this the wrong way, but I'm trying to see if someone would be available to create a page. You did an edit on a page similar to the company I'm inquiring about. If at all interested, message me back and I can share more of the details with you. Thanks in advance for your time! UserKH (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. You can create a draft article on your own via the Articles for creation process. Please also read and comply with Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest and paid editing. Bennv3771 (talk) 08:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Article Submission declined
Hello,

I saw that you declined my article submission. Can you provide any guidance on what exactly you liked or didn't like about it?

I appreciate it!

Altobin (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The tone of the entire draft is far too promotional. Wikipedia also favours independent reliable sources, while the draft instead relies far too heavily on primary sources to praise the company. For example, the claim "Clearsurance's trusted insurance recommendations are powered by customer reviews and ratings data collected by real policyholders" is sourced to the company's own youtube channel and is something you'd expect to see on the company's own website, not an encyclopedia. Similarly, sections like "Clearsurance's Core Values" are not things you would see in any well written encyclopedic article. In fact, I originally thought the entire draft was lifted from the company's website, and was surprised when the copyright violation check came back negative. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay thank you for the feedback! That's helpful. Altobin (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You may find it helpful to refer to the article for a somewhat similar company: Yelp. Said article was deemed a "good article" by Wikipedia standards. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay I will take a look at that one. Thank you! Altobin (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Disapproved my article
Why did you reject my articles after spending days of research and looking for citation just based on notability??? is Wikipedia now meant for popular pages ?. Actually if i remember my password to my old confirmed account i would not have to deal with this disappointing rejection. The sources provided in the article are credible and enough citation was ref. Akinolaabd (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)AkinolabdAkinolaabd (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia was always only meant for notable (or "popular" if you will) topics. That's the whole point of Notability - to determine if a topic warrants a Wikipedia article. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to skip the Articles for Creation process, go ahead. But in its current state, your article would likely be deleted from the site either via the Speedy Deletion or Articles for Deletion process. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad, considering you have a conflict of interest on this topic, you should not skip the Articles for Creation process. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Disapproved my article
Thanks for your response, i will continue editing the article with more sources.Akinolaabd (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)AkinolaabdAkinolaabd (talk) 16:34, 11 June 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)

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)

February 2021
Your recent editing history at Sherri Tenpenny shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 185.188.61.18 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not an edit war to remove unsourced content from a WP:BLP and restore sourced content. Please feel free to report this to an admin so that your disruption can finally be stopped. And please stop introducing false and unsourced information into other articles I've edited in the past. Bennv3771 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some help in article expansion
Greetings,

Requesting you to visit Draft:Sexual politics and expand the same if you find interested.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Bony-eared assfish year described
Every website I've seen gives the year as 1878 for the bony-eared assfish. Even the wikipedia page gives that year for (in the table to right). BulbousCow (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the cited source. It even gives the year as 1878. That 1887 work was just describing two specimens taken by the Challenger expedition. BulbousCow (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The relevant paragraph in the Bony-eared assfish article is currently sourced to this national geographic article which states "1887"; I'm not seeing "1878" anywhere in that article. If the national geographic article made an error, then could you add another more reliable citation to verify the date if you make any changes. Thanks. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must've been looking at the further reading section of the bony-eared assfish. The original 1878 description is also cited on that page. 1887 work was just elaborating on two specimens taken by the Challenger expedition. I don't see how a NatGeo article should be considered remotely reliable when you have two primary soucees in the article itself? BulbousCow (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree the natgeo article shouldn't be considered more reliable than academic sources. But the natgeo article is currently the only citation given for that entire paragraph, so for verifiability sake, a more reliable citation should be added/replace it. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Not sure how to link that, but I just changed the ref format for the original descipton from 1878 so it could be cited twice. BulbousCow (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spice Girls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bardot.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Wannabe
I added a reference to Wannabe yesterday and you said I forgot to add a page number. But I didn't forget though. Go back and the reference is right there (ref 117) and it said "Halliwell, Geraldine (1999). If Only. Delacorte Press. p. 309. ISBN 0-385-33475-3.". The reference currently says page "215–216" which is wrong, it was page 309. Grand Dizzy (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you sure your version of the book has the same ISBN as the one cited? Bennv3771 (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think I got the wrong details. It's page 309 from 0 553 81529 6 Bantam Press 1999. Quote from the bottom of the page: "The video appeared to be shot as one continuous take from beginning to end, but was in fact two takes, so perfectly synchronized that no-one could tell." Grand Dizzy (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case I think it is better to leave the current citation as it is since it's the same version of the book cited in the rest of the article. But yes, you did cite a page number in your original edit, I was wrong about that. Bennv3771 (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, have a good day! Grand Dizzy (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)