User talk:Ca/Archives/2024/April

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello ,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Madison%27s_Lumber_Reporter
Hello,

Thanks for working on my draft page. Regarding your comment: " I removed some sources that does not even mention this company. " Those sources are directly citing the company data. At a cursory glance it might seem that the company is not mentioned, however there are indeed citations at the bottom of the data tables directly referencing the company as a source.

These government department and agency data tables are updated weekly using the company's proprietary data.

The section "Academic Publishing" which was removed, the company is cited as third author, as viewed at the top of the first page. The company's lumber price data is discussed on page 2. I have returned that section to the page.

Regarding your comment: "The listed sources do not talk about the company in an in-depth fashion. They only cite the publication, with no other context given about this publication. "

The listed sources republish the company's proprietary data every week, through each individual subscriptions and with the express permission of the company (as noted in their citations).

Regarding your comment: "Submission is about a company or organization not yet shown to meet notability guidelines"

The draft page denotes this company as relevant to WikiProject Forestry, WikiProject Finance & Investment, WikiProject Business. These multiple categories indicate that the company content does indeed meet notability guidelines.

I have edited the links to update to the most recent citations. I have added another economic analysis document using the company data & referencing such, and resubmitted the page. Thank you so much.

JanaPrag (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Notability is an unfortunate term used in Wikipedia. It is more about: based on the avilable sources, can I make a decent article on this topic? It is not about importance or relevance. Please read the guideline WP:NCORP.
 * We need sources that talk ABOUT the company, not just reprint their data. Ca talk to me!  23:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I see, thank you. There are several links provided to mainstream media stories mentioning the company, as an expert source on this topic of lumber prices. Providing the insight from this company to their readers. Is that not considered "noteworthy"? I can go back further in time and find more such references, I just thought it best to keep to the recent ones (most accurate to current economics). Thanks. JanaPrag (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is understandable that It is difficult to write an well-sourced article when all the sources are doing is to cite the company's data. When readers come onto Wikipedia, they typically expect more information than "x was cited by x"; otherwise, the readers could visit the official website where you would not be bound by rules preventing promotion. Ca talk to me!  00:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi again, thanks so much for being helpful with this. I am looking at this page Esquire (magazine) for insight on how to make my submission better. Thanks! JanaPrag (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Question from Tauneutrino314 (03:42, 8 April 2024)
Hello! I would like to know how to make a Wikipedia article, specifically about a book series I have recently read. --Tauneutrino314 (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Tauneutrino314, I recommend following the guide WP:Your First Article. Feel free to leave a message again if you need help. Ca talk to me!  05:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You reverted my edit on the "Skibidi toilet" article.
I added in parenthesis the fact that the "Secret Agent" is voiced by Alexey Gerasimov (the creator of the series). You undid this edit, and claimed it was not from a reliable source. Gerasmiov has been the one voicing his own videos since he made videos that have voice acting. He has never used a different person to voice his videos. Therefore, he could be the only one to voice the "Secret Agent" in the series. Thus, my edit was factual, regardless of the presence of (or lack thereof, rather) a "reliable source". Robertjhennigan (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, Wikipedia operates under WP:Verifiability, not truth, even if your claim is true, you need a reliable source.
 * I have to question this theory though:
 * He has never used a different person to voice his videos According to whom?
 * Even if that is true, Gerasimov may have used a speech synthesis software. Ca talk to me!  01:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You make some fair points, but I still believe my initial claim to be correct. I do understand, however, that I need reliable sources, of which I have none. Therefore, I will waste no more of your time. Thank you, and have a good one. Robertjhennigan (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Your review of Mendix page
Hi! Thank you so much for reviewing my draft of the Mendix page in February. I've taken another look at the facts and sources, particularly at Forbes pieces, and removed some sources and facts were not strong. However, this article looks legit to me as a source based on the explanations given here. As it is said at the top of the article, it's "A series of Forbes Insights profiles" so it's an editorially supervised piece. Plus, it's written by Bruce Rogers who has been at Forbes as Chief Brand Officer, Chief Insights Officer, founder of Forbes Insights and the Forbes CMO Practice and Staff writer. So hopefully it does provide a necessary level of expertise and independency from his side to be used as a reliable source - what do you think?

And more broadly, just wondered if you could please have a look at the updated draft as a whole and let me know what you think about it now. I'd really appreciate that. Thank you! Katherinegoose (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Katherinegoose! I will be taking a look at the new updated draft soon. As for the source, you can't get much wrong with a simple interview. I am still concerned why this article has not gone through the regular Forbes editorial cycle and I don't see any issues for simple uncontroversial facts. Ca talk to me!  21:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I see, thank you for clarifying... Hmm don't really know what the reason for that may be... But in any case will be super helpful to hear your thoughts on the updated draft when you have time. Thank you!! Katherinegoose (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Katherinegoose I took a look at the draft and the sourcing is much better. However, they seem to be in the shallow side. Many simply list sterotypical company details example.
 * As it is common with news coverage on companies, news media likes to simply reprint the company's statements with little analysis example. I would like if you could find more substantial coverage on what this company does.
 * Also I am not sure if Verdict is reliable. It certainly isn't well known and it has a unclear author. Ca talk to me!  14:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Review of Sandbox
Hello Ca thank you but my draft appears to have been archived from your talk page so I can’t access it to press the button as you describe. I think you have already reviewed it—I was hoping you would edit it guided by our discussions and I would submit your edited version for review? Cresterest (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am really really sorry for taking so long - I formatted the text in your sandbox for you: User:Cresterest/sandbox. You can find the original, unformatted text at User_talk:Ca/Archives/2024/February. All you need to do is to place the text into the intended places.
 * There is no need get edits you want reviewed. In fact, it is actually recommended to be bold, then discuss if others disagree. The sources seem reliable to me, but I took out some of the text referring to the external links section. I think the labels on the link in the External Links section are clear enough. Thanks! ♠ Ca talk to me!  10:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I’m working on it now. Cresterest (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * OK I am preparing to cut and paste but the post mishap photo has a / in the link view that doesn’t show / on the pre mishap photo links?
 * Should I credit these web linked photos? Cresterest (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * this is the version with mysterious /
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACresterest%2Fsandbox&redlink=1&preload=Template%3AUser+sandbox%2Fpreload#/editor/all Cresterest (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ok I fixed it Ca talk to me!  08:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello world Lfontaine.trust (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)