User talk:Bennv123/Archive 9

Awards
Hey again, I've been working on overhauling the List of awards and nominations received by Spice Girls page. You can see what I've done so far at User:Bennv3771/sandbox3. The main issue is a lot of the awards are unsourced. I was wondering if any of your book sources (biographies, autobiographies, the official Spice Girls magazines etc) can help verify any of the following awards/nominations. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Bravo Music Awards/Bravo Otto: 1997, 1998
 * Blockbuster Entertainment Awards:
 * 1999 - Favorite Movie Actress in a Comedy (nom)
 * Capital Music Awards/Capital FM Awards/95.8 Capital Awards:
 * 1997 - London's Favourite Female Group (won)
 * 1999 - London's Favourite Concert (won)
 * 2008 - Icon Award (won)
 * Danish Grammy Awards/Danish Music Awards
 * 1997 - Best Foreign New Act (nom)


 * Hi Bennv, sorry for not responding sooner. I recently moved to a new apartment plus the restrictions because of the pandemic, things were kinda hectic for a while. In the next days I will try to keep looking for the info you are asking and also continue to give you the info from their autobiographies. Frcm1988 (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, take your time. You've already been an immense help. Bennv123 (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hope you've settled into your new place well. By the way, I've been working on rewriting the article for Spice World – 2019 Tour. Currently working on it at User:Bennv123/sandbox, and hoping to get it to Good Article status eventually. Let me know if you're interested in helping, especially if you know where I can find the credits for the tour's personnel (band, dancers etc). Bennv123 (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Re: minor edits
Thanks for the reminder about minor edits! I originally intended only to add sources and fix typos but I kinda lost track of what I was editing and forgot to remove the minor edit mark. Again, thanks for the reminder! :) Itsquietuptown   t • c 11:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Islamabad Policy Research Institute
Hello,

I am part of IT team at Islamabad Policy Research Institute and had to create the page on Wikipedia. Therefore, I am not copying any content from them. The text was given to me by their content team. I am new on Wikipedia, so please guide me on what should I do to get the page back.

Thanks!

Atif624 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Two things:
 * 1. The text they gave you was copied from the official website of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute. The copyright terms of the website clearly states that the material on the website is copyrighted and cannot be republished without permission. This goes against Wikipedia's copyright license, which generally states that Wikipedia's text is freely licensed to the public for reuse. To be compatible with the Wikipedia license, the website will have to change the terms of its license to allow the public (not just its employees) to freely republish its material without needing permission. This is obviously not going to happen, so if you want to create an article for the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, you'll have to write it in your own words.
 * 2. ALSO (and this is very important), since you work for the Islamabad Policy Research Institute and are intending to create an article at their behest, you are required to declare your conflict of interest and disclose your paid contributions. See WP:PAID for how to do this. Please also follow the guidelines for editing with a conflict of interest. Bennv123 (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1. I got your first point and will try using my own words
 * 2. I am not being paid specifically for this wikipedia page. I am handling the web part of this organization and they had no presence on Wikipedia so I am tasked to make a page so I am not being paid for this specific task. More importantly, all the things mentioned in this page are purely facts, and not opinion. So how me being the part of organization will sabotage the rules of Wikipedia?
 * 2. I am not being paid specifically for this wikipedia page. I am handling the web part of this organization and they had no presence on Wikipedia so I am tasked to make a page so I am not being paid for this specific task. More importantly, all the things mentioned in this page are purely facts, and not opinion. So how me being the part of organization will sabotage the rules of Wikipedia?

Kindly guide me on how should I pursue with this case? Thanks.

Atif624 (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * “I am tasked to make a page” By your employer/boss? If so, you are a paid contributor and you will need to follow the rules laid out at WP:PAID. Either way, you have a conflict of interest so read and follow the guidelines laid out at WP:COI. Bennv123 (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Spice Girls
Hi, thank you for your message about the edit I did on their discography page. It was a total mistake as I don't even remember doing that. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawow (talk • contribs) 10:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

In Your Area Tour
Did you even realised that the korean article posted as reference is from January 4, 2020, based in just 28 dates reported when the tour wasn't even finished? And the source for the total in question is the Touring Data post from December 9, 2019?

The article that I posted is from the Time magazine, the biggest and most influential magazine on the entire planet using the overall total for the 36 dates posted by the same source and also used by the Guiness Book World Records. Make it make sense.

You should revise this. Thank you.
 * It doesn't matter how big or influential Time magazine is. The issue is that the Time magazine source you cited does not support your claim that "The tour sold 472,183 tickets for a total gross of US$56.8 million across 36 shows." Please cite a reliable source that actually verifies your claims. Bennv123 (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand that Wiki has its rules, but you can clearly see that the source in the In Your Area Tour page is using a Touring Data post from December 9, 2019, when the tour wasn't even finished. And the numbers are on the page as if it was the final total. Makes no sense a source on the level of Time can't be used as source doing the same thing as the korean site posted. You should at least make it clear that the number in question is based on 28 dates, not 36.
 * It isn't that a source on the level of Time can't be used. Again, the issue is that the Time source doesn't support your claims at all (i.e. the source does not say that the tour sold 472,183 tickets or that it had a total gross of $56.8 million). If you have a source on the level of Time that supports the figures you claim, then it absolutely can be used. Bennv123 (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've also removed the tour figures that were taken from Touring Data since that source is essentially a self-published blog. Thanks for bringing my attention to that source. Bennv123 (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * At least it was deleted because it was absolutely doubtful to see numbers from 28 dates being used as the final total. Considering that even Time, Guiness and lots sites used Touring Data as source, I wouldn't say that it isn't reliable but I understand and respect the Wiki rules about blogs.

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello :

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Edit War
I woudlnt have to be in a edit war, if yall white men would stop down playing BLACK WOMEN's sales. Im going to continue to change them because yall are being ignorant. Me and several others have brung them up and yall CONSTANTLY ignore, so we are tired of the bs.
 * I am neither white nor a man. Stop making personal attacks on other editors just because they disagree with you or you will almost certainly be blocked from editing very soon. Bennv123 (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I AM NOT ATTACKING. Others and I have tried to have multiple talks about these sales, and what happened everytime we woulf bring them up? yall ignore us, and its ONLY when its concerning black women's sales. Yall are always down to debate when it comes to white men's sales! so why can't I defend us black woman?
 * Where have you "tried to have multiple talks about these sales"? I don't see any discussion by you on Talk:List of best-selling albums. Bennv123 (talk) 04:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * have you listened to anything that I have said, OTHERS AND I, and its not only on that talk, its everywhere on janet's album sales on the janet. album.
 * My edit warring warning was about your edits on List of best-selling albums. Edit warring on the article itself is not the same thing as having a discussion (edit summaries are not a replacement for the talk pages). You need to start a civil discussion on Talk:List of best-selling albums and gain consensus with the other editors there, not on the article itself. Bennv123 (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

IWF
thanks for your comment "internal Wikipedia links cannot be used as a substitute for an external ref because Wikipedia does not consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source", rule that I already know and respect quite well since 2004. I was talking about the fact that this article was linked with IWF database where all World Championships' participations are listed, why should add a specific one to each result. I mainly edit athletes articles since 2004, and sometimes people ask me to add the proof of a specific result or time, and they are all listed, one by one, by World Athletics, on the profile of the athlete. This is a thing that I do not understand well. Thanks again--Arorae (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "I was talking about the fact that this article was linked with IWF database where all World Championships' participations are listed..." Are you referring to one of the links in the "External links" section of Bruno Cetraro? If so, 1) see WP:MINREF and 2) which link in the "External links" section verifies that Bruno Cetraro "participated in the lightweight single scull at the 2019 World Championships"? The first link takes me to an IWF profile for a rower named Rodolfo Collazo, and the second link takes me to the Sports Reference profile for Rodolfo Collazo. Neither of these external links has anything to do with Bruno Cetraro, and none of them even mention the 2019 World Rowing Championships. Bennv123 (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for letting me know. JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

About 3x3
Hi there. I chose to move the page to "Three by Three" for consistency with other articles: Two by Two, Four by four (disambiguation), and Five by Five (disambiguation). 2x2 and 5x5 redirect to their respective articles, and even 1x1 redirects to One Times One. It's true all of the entries on 3x3 say "3x3" instead of "three by three" or "three times three". With this in mind, what should be the title for the page? Zeke Essiestudy  (talk/contributions) 06:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For the sake of consistency, I'm fine with you moving the page back to Three by Three. Bennv123 (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Request on 02:38:35, 13 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Aspiresumellc
I am requesting help to better understand why the draft was declined. The sources provided do reference the musician and some are even solely written with the artist as the primary subject. Other references included were to substantiate that venues performed at, artists collaborated with, etc., are in fact noteworthy. The artist has an extensive discography and has been publicly recognized within the electronic music industry as a producer, label manager, and disc jockey. One aspect that is challenging is that there are numerous other electronic artists with wikipedia pages who have very few references and not nearly the extensive documentation as this artist. Can you please help me to understand better? Thank you in advance for your time! Aspiresumellc (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Aspiresumellc Aspiresumellc (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, happy to explain why I declined your draft. These are all the references provided as of the time of this post:


 * 1) "Denver's internationally renowned Beta Nightclub to 'close the curtains' in 2019" -- The Know – The Denver Post: doesn't mention the subject (Ben A) at all
 * 2) "The 25 Greatest Dance Clubs of All Time" -- Billboard.com: doesn't mention the subject at all
 * 3) "Toolroom Records" -- Discogs.com: Discogs is an unreliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned because the content on that site is user-generated. Hence it cannot be used to establish notability (see Reliable sources/Perennial sources). The subject having a track included in a non-notable compilation does not establish notablity either (see WP:MUSICBIO criterion #10 which requires that the work the subject is featured in is notable itself)
 * 4) "Various – Toolroom Ibiza 2019" -- Discogs.com: see above.
 * 5) "WMC Returns In A Virtual Format For 2021 (WMCV)" -- wintermusicconference.com: doesn't mention the subject at all
 * 6) "Winter Music Conference Virtual" -- hopin.com: Extremely trivial coverage that merely mentions the performance date and subject's name (see WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1).
 * 7) "MAGNETIC SOUND SYSTEM: TECH HOUSE AND VIBEY GROOVES FROM THE MILE HIGH CITY'S BEN A AND VEDIC" -- magneticmag.com: the notability guideline requires the sources to be independent of the subject, which press releases are not (see WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1).
 * 8) "MOODY RECORDINGS" -- beatport.com: not an independent source (the subject works for this company) and there is no mentioned of the subject here anyway
 * 9) "House Producer Ben A Calls Denver Home, but He's Playing the World" -- westword.com: an interview in which the majority of the coverage is the subject talking about himself i.e. not independent (see WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1).


 * All in all, the coverage in the sources provided do demonstrate that the subject meets the WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1, which requires that subject of the article receive coverage in "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." This does not necessarily mean that the subject is not notable by Wikipedia's standards, just that sources provided in the current draft do not demonstrate it. You are welcome to provide additional sources that meet any of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. Hope this helps clarifies things. Bennv123 (talk) 04:50, 13 August 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)

WP:AFC Helper News
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest. Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
 * The template db-afc-move has been created - this template is similar to db-move when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

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)

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)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cover of In the Darkroom, memoir by Susan Faludi.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cover of In the Darkroom, memoir by Susan Faludi.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) 17:10, 8 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)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Little Secrets (2001 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Kiernan. 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) 09:19, 23 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. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Genuine question
Hi, I have been affected by the latest message on my talk page. The question I have is that for older films, I am assuming that the notability requirements are the same, right? Little confused by Wikipedia's policy of no deadlines. DareshMohan (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. I assume you are referring to this edit left on your talk page by another editor? If so, I'd rather not get dragged into this since it doesn't involve me at all. I'm not even sure what the issue is since that editor seems to be upset at you about their article being draftified (Draft:Sarigamalu), even though it wasn't even draftified by you. Bennv123 (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, no problem. thanks btw. ;) DareshMohan (talk) 20:18, 3 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.

undo
Is that the only reason you undid all my alterations? "the consensus is that" is unverified and unsourced. I don't even think it can be sourced that's why I switched it. Also, the worlds, "some scholars believe" are not weasel if you actually source the claim as I did, the problem is if you use soft attributions and don't source. "The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." Billyball998 (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My reason for undoing your alterations is that they were not an (overall) improvement to the article in my opinion, as I said in my edit summary. When you say it is "unverified and unsourced"... are you saying you checked all the cited book references and verified this yourself? And the lead does not state "the consensus is that" and/or "some scholars believe" in either the current version or the version with your alterations. So how does WP:LEAD apply here? You can propose your changes at Talk:Book of Daniel and see if you can get consensus there. Bennv123 (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean that it is unverified that there is a consensus, thats why I switched it to reflect that this is the position of some scholars. The quote that I sent you that has the lead section hyper link is from the weasel section, after it talks about weasel words, it states clearly that they aren't ipso facto weasel words: only if you don't source. This criteria doesn't only apply to the lead section but to the whole article. If you don't get what I'm saying please just read the weasel section all the way through. Thank you. My changes overall I think are too expansive to be written out in the talk section, perhaps I can post this specific issue (whether to say consensus or some scholars) to the talk board, and upload the rest of the changes. All of my changes are for the purpose of academic honesty and clarity, if there are other complaints you have with it please let me know otherwise I'd like to repost the rest of the changes. Billyball998 (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because such phrases are not automatically weasel words doesn't mean the inverse is automatically true either (i.e. that they are automatically not weasel words). It depends on the usage and context. The passage from WP:WEASEL you quoted from also says: "Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source." I am not convinced that you have actually read the cited book references to verify that your changes accurately represent the opinions of those sources. FYI changes similar to yours have been discussed extensively on Talk:Book of Daniel (and all its archives) over the years, and the current version of the article is the result of all those discussions and consensus. Bennv123 (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the three sources that are effected and their claims (seow, ryken, and collins), I am not adjusting the claim or source at all, I am only changing it from consensus to clarify this is the position of some scholars, and not necessarily a consensus. It is not more or less weaselly in that regard. Nonetheless I will make a discussion point. Billyball998 (talk) 07:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do think you should start a discussion on Talk:Book of Daniel, especially if you want to make substantial changes to an article whose content has been discussed extensively. And if you do reinstate your changes, please note that Wikipedia uses sentence casing not title casing for its section headings. Bennv123 (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much and have a good day/evening/night :) Billyball998 (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I have listed you as a part at Dispute resolution noticeboard. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Poison Ivy (2022 comic book)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Additional citations needed?
In Moxie (novel), which I created and you reviewed, you say more citations are needed. This article certainly has a some problems, but I didn't think that was one of them. What did you want to see citations for? Thanks, Dan Bloch (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. I added the template due to the uncited content in the lead of the article (publication date, publisher, film adaptation), which isn't mentioned or sourced anywhere else in the article. Hope that answers your question. Regards. Bennv123 (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

problems related to the article Russian–Chinese Winter Youth Games
Hi, as you have moved the article to from Russian-Chinese Winter Youth Games to Russian–Chinese Winter Youth Games, I have also renamed related pages. But I couldnt add or edit the name on the template, do you know any way to rename the template box and add/edit new stuff into it? Sharontse121 (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Which template are you specifically referring to? Bennv123 (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Russian%E2%80%93Chinese_Winter_Youth_Games&action=edit Sharontse121 (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean Template:Russian-Chinese Winter Youth Games? At the top right hand corner of the page, there is a "More" tab, click it and there should be a "Move" option. You can move the template to the correct name. Bennv123 (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ohh...got it~
 * Thanks a lot Sharontse121 (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Cheever collections
Dear Bennv123 - I noted your requests for citations in the article The Brigadier and the Golf Widow, which I recently created. You are aware, no doubt, that I am a great practitioner and advocate for footnotes that support the text in my articles. You too provide copious footnotes.

My question is this: Do you feel that a footnote and citation is required for each sentence in every article you edit, and if not, must be flagged? And more particularly, did you dispute that the sentence "Orville Prescott in the daily New York Times considered some of the stories "sinister fantasies", among these "The Swimmer" and "The Ocean." not supported by the Bailey footnote at the end of the paragraph? Similarly, did you suspect the sentence "In a Time magazine review by Alwyn Lee, Cheever was approvingly dubbed the "Ovid in Ossining" was not supported by the Meanor source at the end of the paragraph?

If you are vetting this material, and you have the sources in hand, viz. Bailey and Meanor, you can add the footnote/citation yourself. If not, what is your basis for flagging the sentence? CerroFerro (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I do not have the sources at hand. I assume good faith that the citations support the content they claim to support. And as per Wikipedia's verifiability policy, I tag direct quotations which do not have a clear inline citation. As for the purpose of flagging the direct quotations which do not, it is to help other editors identify, and hopefully add, the missing inline citations. Please remember that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, new page reviewers are most certainly not required to add any footnotes/citations themselves. Bennv123 (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. I can certainly provide a footnote when quoting material directly from my source. And welcome to Wikipedia: keep up the good.--CerroFerro (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Down Will Come Baby
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Down Will Come Baby 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Nineteen Ninety-Four guy -- Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Down Will Come Baby
The article Down Will Come Baby you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Down Will Come Baby for comments about the article, and Talk:Down Will Come Baby/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Nineteen Ninety-Four guy -- Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Death in Small Doses (1995 film)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Death in Small Doses (1995 film) 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of An anonymous username, not my real name -- An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Death in Small Doses (1995 film)
The article Death in Small Doses (1995 film) 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:Death in Small Doses (1995 film) and Talk:Death in Small Doses (1995 film)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of An anonymous username, not my real name -- An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Death in Small Doses (1995 film)
The article Death in Small Doses (1995 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Death in Small Doses (1995 film) for comments about the article, and Talk:Death in Small Doses (1995 film)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of An anonymous username, not my real name -- An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Little Secrets (2001 film)
The article Little Secrets (2001 film) 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:Little Secrets (2001 film) and Talk:Little Secrets (2001 film)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Nineteen Ninety-Four guy -- Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Down Will Come Baby
~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 00:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Excuse my last edit
You may have noticed I thanked you. I actually made the same edit you just did, only 10 seconds later, which was nulled by your edit. I'm currently editing on mobile; couldn't edit on source so had to edit on visual, which cause the error you had to fix. Sorry about that. That being said, I'm still not sure the article is entirely accurate. Wood specifically said she "did the Junior Olympics", to most that would imply the Junior Olympics Games, not the US AAE Junior Olympic Games that you've linked to. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 04:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Having written lots of articles about American athletes like Sara Hughes, I've found that "Junior Olympics" almost always refers to the AAU Junior Olympic Games, not the Youth Olympic Games (which is specifically "Youth", not "Junior"). For example, when I search for "Junior Olympics" on google search, every result on the first page is about the AAU Junior Olympic Games. Bennv123 (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The confusion seems to be because you are using "Youth Olympic Games" and "Junior Olympic Games" interchangeably. But I've yet to come across an American source that refers to the "Youth Olympic Games" as the "Junior Olympic Games". In American media, the IOC international event is always the "Youth Olympic Games", while the AAU national events are the "Junior Olympic Games" (e.g. ); where "Youth" and "Junior" are not interchangeable as they refer to two separate establishments. Bennv123 (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)