User talk:BlueTurtles/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, Araratic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! 220  of  Borg 12:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Revert on Xiamen
Hi, you've reverted my edit on Xiamen. I don't have any reliable sources for my edit, but Amoy is evidently closer to the Zhangzhou pronunciation rather than the Xiamen pronunciation. See Amoy and 廈門 on Wiktionary. Justinrleung (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

That explanation makes sense to me now. I have undid my undo. Thanks for explaining it. Its strange how it doesn't originate from the Xiamen pronunciation. Araratic (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
Please do not add or change content, as you did at SkyTeam, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jetstreamer $Talk$ 12:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The information about Sky team being the second largest clearly conflicts the other airline alliance pages such as OneWorld and Star Alliance. I will change the sources if that is not enough. Araratic (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Revert on 'Twin'
I was just reviewing your request for rollback on WP:RFPERM and looking at your recent contributions to evaluate whether to grant the right. I have a small concern about one recent edit and thought it best to share it with you so you can get better at countering vandalism.

In this revert, you reverted an edit to the page Twin. You then added a warning here. The warning said that the user would be blocked for vandalising Wikipedia. The edit does not look like vandalism: it looks like a good faith attempt to improve the page. It lacked a source, and might be an edit that doesn't add much to the article, but it wasn't obviously vandalism. Please be careful not to bite the newbies by reverting edits they make as vandalism when they aren't. Good faith edits are not vandalism.

There are talk page templates specifically for notifying users of the reversion of good faith editing edits and it is better to use those than another warning template. Some users start out vandalising or making unhelpful contributions, then get better because reviewing editors carefully distinguish between vandalism and non-vandalism. The anti-vandalism tools like Twinkle and Huggle both provide options to "revert good-faith". Hope that helps. Thanks for the anti-vandalism work you are doing on Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to review my request. Regarding that particular revert and warning I acknowledge I may have been mistaken. However, upon inspection of their previous edits such as this it could be concluded the user attempted to make a fake source. In this case it does seem quite likely it is a good faith edit and I have changed my warning to reflect this. In future I will pay more attention to my use of warnings.  Araratic  &#124; talk  10:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi Araratic. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AAraratic enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! —Tom Morris (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.


 * Thanks Araratic  &#124; talk  07:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:STiki!
Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

Disambiguation link notification for June 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Battle of Polytopia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/The_Battle_of_Polytopia check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/The_Battle_of_Polytopia?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) 09:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hello Araratic. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
 * Thanks.  Araratic  &#124; talk  00:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Cook, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyde Park ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/James_Cook check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/James_Cook?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers. Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
 * June backlog drive


 * New technology, new rules
 * New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
 * Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
 * Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.


 * Editathons
 * Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Signpost
 * The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

Draftifying Old Articles
Hi there Araratic. Our paths have crossed a couple times yesterday as we both seem to patrol NPP pages from the oldest side. I am writing to urge caution when choosing to draftify these articles in the face of persistent (inappropriate) creation. Since you draftified Tube8 it had the the G8 tag placed, there was a copy and paste move of the article back there, I did a histmerge request, which was then replaced once again by a G8. I certainly agree with you that this page is not appropriate for mainspace but with IPs in action I don't know that draftifying is the right way to solve this. Also two resources you might not be aware of: User:Evad37/MoveToDraft which automates several steps of the draftifying process and a workflow I made for patrolling the oldest side of the NPP queue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about this. I would have normally just restored the redirect like you but I thought I'd save you the trouble of continually reverting the IP's edits by moving it to the draftspace where it would be less of a problem. Also, thanks for making me aware of that tool. I seem to have forgotten about it, I will look into using in the future. ~  Araratic  &#124;  talk  22:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The Alternative Moondance
Can you explain why you think the article for 2018 Van Morrison album "The Alternative Moondance" should be deleted and searches for that album should be redirected to Morrison's 1970 album "Moondance"? A Google search for "The Alternative Moondance" turns up very little of note as far as secondary sources. Predictably, AllMusic and Discogs have pages for it, since they have pages for just about every album, no matter how minor. The reason I object to merging with "Moondance" is less that I think "The Alternative Moondance" is a critically important album and more that, regardless of its significance, it is not "Moondance." The track listing is different, the takes are different, the album cover is different, the title of the album is different, etc. Anticipating that you will disagree and restore the redirect that I've removed, I'm adding a section in the "Moondance" article.

D.Holt (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I've added some sources and information to improve the article. Dan56 (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not against you keeping the article, as long as you can find reliable secondary sources to prove it's notability for it. In regards to the redirect target, that may have been wrong as you say they are very different albums, however you should make that clear in the article. What Dan56 has done is very helpful in order to keep the article. If the article remains without enough reliable secondary sources to prove notability instead of redirecting I may suggest it for deletion. ~  Araratic  &#124; talk  01:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not completely sure what you mean by "secondary sources to prove it's notability for it." Do you mean secondary sources that prove it is noteworthy? What exactly would that be, something like a review?
 * As things stand right now, there is no evidence on Wikipedia that "The Alternative Moondance" exists, notwithstanding its actual existence, its listing on sites like AllMusic and Discogs, etc. The article I wrote redirects to "Moondance" and the edits I did to "Moondance" to describe "The Alternative Moondance" have been completely deleted by someone who thought there was too much detail, rather than edited down to what that person might consider a more appropriate level of detail.
 * My goal here is simply to make it possible for someone who wants to learn something about "The Alternative Moondance" to get information from Wikipedia rather than having to look elsewhere. If you can work with me to help me achieve that, I would be grateful. D.Holt (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi I unprodded the above redirect becaus as per WP:PROD "Proposed deletion cannot be used with redirects, user pages (except user books), templates, categories, or pages in any other namespace.". It needs to go to WP:RFD. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what "unprodding" is?D.Holt (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I should have said Deprodded which is the action of remove a PROD which is short for Proposed Deletion. Araratic Prodded this redirect which is not allowed as redirects are not in the scope of the PROD so I removed it. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't realise that.
 * Yes, a review from a reliable source would help your article. If it has charted any billboards, that would establish notability too. Take a look at WP:ALBUM as suggested by another editor. If it you would like to keep the article, it needs to pass that unfortunately. If you would like the album mentioned, you could list it at Van Morrison or have a brief mention at Moondance. ~  Araratic  &#124; talk  22:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I deleted most of D.Holt's addition to Moondance--repeating the original album's personnel served no purpose--but have restored the additional track listing and made a note of the release in the body's final paragraph Dan56 (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me Dan56, D.Holt are you fine with redirecting The Alternative Moondance to the section with the tracks now? ~  Araratic  &#124; talk  07:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Thanks for the help. D.Holt (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Subterfugelogo.png
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Removing condense tag

 * Hello, I already merged similar sections and removed unneeded in Xinjiang reeducation camps, if the issue solved can you remove the condense tag from the top, thanks.--KAAN777 (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work, done. ~  Araratic  &#124; talk  23:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Pending Changes Reviewing

 * Thanks for reaching out, unfortunately I've been a bit busy lately and only have had time for new page patrolling (and even in that area I'm not particularly active), I feel I would be stretching my time too thin by reviewing pending changes. I will look into it in the future though. ~  Araratic  &#124; talk  23:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.


 * Project news
 * The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
 * As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.


 * There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See New pages patrol/Coordination for more info to see if you can help out.


 * Other
 * A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.


 * Moving to Draft and Page Mover
 * Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
 * If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
 * Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
 * The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
 * The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Your signature
Hi Araratic, I noticed that your signature uses light blue text on a white background. Per WP:SIGAPP and MOS:COLOR, care should be taken so that colors used in signatures contrast sufficiently with the white background to allow users with vision impairments to see the signatures properly. Specifically, a contrast ratio of 4.5 is a minimum, and a contrast ratio above 7 is strongly encouraged. Light blue on white has a contrast ratio of just 1.53, and use of the "lightblue" color is specifically noted as non-compliant. If you have any questions about how to design or modify your signature to be compliant, please let me know. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 19:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, I have fixed it now. ~  Araratic  &#124; talk  01:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Categories
Hello yes that was an error also I am currently creating sub-categories within Category:Royal Navy appointments  as there was nearly 600 and growing and not easy to find specific information hence why Category:Clerks of the Royal Navy was created.--Navops47 (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks for clarifying. ~  Araratic  &#124; talk  08:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Ron Tyson
Hi! Thanks for drawing attention to the copyvio problem at Ron Tyson, which I hope I have now sorted out. Just for future reference: speedy deletion isn't usually a good choice of remedy for pages with a long history like this one. For those, blanking the page and listing it at WP:Copyright problems is usually preferable. There are instructions here, but please do ask if they aren't completely clear. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing everything up, I guess I didn't do a thorough enough reading of the appropriate pages and check of the article history. I will keep this in mind next time I come across a copyright violation though. ~  Araratic  &#124; talk  10:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
 * Backlog


 * Community Wishlist Proposal
 * There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
 * Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!


 * Project updates
 * ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
 * There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.


 * New scripts
 * User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js(info) — A new script created for quickly placing copyvio-revdel on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

October 26, 2018
Hello Araratic, you put a COI tag on a page I recently published. I want to declare that I have no conflict of interest with the biography I published. I am an employee of an academic institution and I take great care to be objective in my writing. All facts presented were supported by references and reliable resources as per wikipedia guidelines. The article is within the scope of the wikibiography project and adheres to all guidelines for biographies of living persons. All unsupported information were not included in the article. This was the first article of a series I am preparing on Lebanese scientists. Looking forward to your thoughts and advice!Lebsci (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks for contacting me, I placed the tag because you had recently changed your user name from Jawad.fares to Lebsci (as seen in the page history) which could seem to note a conflict of interest as it is the subject of the article. Also it is unusual for new editor to be so familiar with Wikipedia's policies and manual of style which isn't bad but not common. However my main concern is with your username change, could you explain to me why your username was originally Jawad.fares? ~  Araratic  &#124; talk  00:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

October 26, 2018
Hello Araratic! Indeed, I made a mistake when choosing a username. I thought that this will be the name of the draft. Later, when I found out that the name of the draft comes at a different stage, I requested the change in the username. I can see your point and where the confusion could arise. Sorry for that. I read a lot of instructions and policies on wikipedia before posting the article. I also have to thank other editors who helped me in referencing correctly. Thank you again for your help!Lebsci (talk)
 * Okay, thanks for clarifying. I wish you luck with your other articles. ~  Araratic  &#124; talk  00:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of specifications on two articles
Hi please can you elaborate on why you removed the specs of the Pixelbook and reset the new Pixel Slate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattA Official (talk • contribs) 10:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for contacting me. There were mainly two problems with your edits:
 * Firstly all edits to Wikipedia must be verifiable by reliable sources.
 * Secondly, they should conform to the manual of style, the link is a bit length and I don't expect you to read it. In summary Wikipedia articles all have a consistent format that should be followed, Wikipedia is not meant to look like a webpage but an encyclopaedia. Thus, prose is generally preferred over short dot points and the table of contents must be kept. Take a look at the "iPhone X" article for a good example of how the article should look.


 * Hope this helped! ~  Araratic  &#124; talk  11:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Hello ,
 * Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
 * Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.


 * If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.


 * We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.


 * With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello ,

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
 * Reviewer of the Year
 * Thanks are also extended for their work to (15,059 reviews),  (12,760reviews),  (9,001reviews),  (8,440reviews),  (8,092reviews),   (5,306reviews),  (4,153 reviews),  (4,016reviews),  and  (3,615reviews)., , , and  have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only sevenmonths, while , with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top100 reviewers.

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
 * Less good news, and an appeal for some help

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
 * Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minutevideo was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Training video

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing West Virginia Route 78, Araratic.

Unfortunately Insertcleverphrasehere has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

"If you reviewed this article, please note that PRODed and CSD tagged articles should not be marked as reviewed, per consensus here. That's not necessarily to say that the tag is not applicable, this change is just to help stop things from falling through the cracks. Thanks."

To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.

—  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    10:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't actually remember clicking review on that. It may have been the curation tools automatically reviewing it when I tagged it for deletion. Is that a thing? ~  Araratic  &#124; talk  13:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Yes. it is a bug in the page curation software. There is a phabricator task associated with it, which has not yet been addressed. In future, when PRODing or CSDing articles with the curation software, just click the 'unreview' button afterwards. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    17:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Corin Depper
Dear Araratic, I wish to inform you that I just contested your speedy deletion nomination for "Corin Depper" which I find profoundly unfair. Yours Faithfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4HcxdV9x (talk • contribs) 20:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it appears I should not have nominated it for a speedy deletion. Articles on Wikipedia must satisfy the general notability guidelines and should contain several independent reliable sources with significant coverage to should notability. For academics though following the guidelines at WP:NACADEMIC is also enough to show notability for the article. If you can fulfill these guidelines your article can remain on Wikipedia. ~  Araratic  &#124;  talk  01:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Araratic, thank you for your prompt reply. Since you have nominated the page I added some referencing. Could you please have a look. Thank you very much in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4HcxdV9x (talk • contribs) 09:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC) Well, I just ckecked and my last works on the page have been removed by user Bakazaka although perfectly referenced; I don't understand why there is so much biased hatred against this legitimate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4HcxdV9x (talk • contribs) 09:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC) Moreover, user Bakazaka who is only contributing on pages for women seem to be vandalising and diminishing pages about men.
 * Please read the pages I have linked above (in blue). References, should be independent and reliable (read this for further info WP:RS). Please do note personal attacks on Wikipedia users aren't constructive either. Also, please remember to sign you messages with "~" ~  Araratic  &#124; talk  12:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I have written many pages, I know how to reference, thank you. These are independent and reliable. Over a dozen universities across europe; such institutions as The British Library. This is not a personal attack, I don't know this person, I am just stating that this seems to be gender-based censorship. Moreover, this user has full pages on Japanese actresses who just started their careers and barely appeared in few productions but you want to delete a scholar's page who has been working for 2 decades, impacted the work of many other scholars and supervises Phds. It is due to deletion nomination practices by administrators like you that less known Film theorists are actually absent on wikipedia, theorists who, unlike these actresses, do not benefit from the press impacted by publicists backed up by billionaire entertainment corporations and whose works need visibility. Their work is being consequently prevented from general access to knowledge on wikipedia while there are thousands of pages dedicated to reality or soap opera celebrities. How ludicrous. I simply find it detrimental that users opting for such postulates like you are given administrator power and there is nothing personal in this. -- 17:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NACADEMIC on the criteria that applies to scholars on Wikipedia, which are different as the press usually doesn't cover scholars. If they have won a prestigious award or position it is usually enough to justify notability. I am not an Administrator and do not have any power to delete articles, I have simply put your article up for a discussion (which you can do with other articles too). You can take part in the discussion too at Articles for deletion/Corin Depper. ~  Araratic  &#124; talk  23:47, 7 February 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)

FR30799386's User Scripts
Dear all. Recently, was blocked for sock puppetry. Among their projects were a number of user scripts that they left behind. I (DannyS712) have copied the scripts, and have taken over maintaining them. You currently import one or more of FR30799386's scripts, and I thought that you might want to import a maintained version. Links to each script are provided below.


 * User:DannyS712/communicator
 * User:DannyS712/copyvio-check
 * User:DannyS712/Undo
 * User:DannyS712/Quick-undo
 * User:DannyS712/Readonly
 * User:DannyS712/Redirectify
 * User:DannyS712/Section-strike

If you have any questions, please reach out and talk to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ColorOS5 logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:ColorOS5 logo.png. 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) 02:25, 5 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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)