User talk:Dewritech/Archive 5

Guttenberg
I see you've reverted my addition the Guttenplag image of Guttenberg's thesis plagiarism. As you can see, the result of an RfC was that the section on Guttenberg's plagiarism should be expanded to a few paragraphs, reflecting its (apparently decisive) importance to his political career. Your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines (that when a "main article" is separated out, a topic no longer needs to be given due weight in the original article) was not shared by those who commented in the RfC. I'd like to move forward on this issue somehow, but if you revert me every time I try to expand the plagiarism section to give it the due weight it deserves, that's impossible. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted your addition of the Guttenplag thumbnail due to the fact that it presents POV-data. Although part of your caption addressed this issue ("A representation of claimed plagiarism in Guttenberg's thesis.") the thumbnail needs additional information with regard to its information's origin, political stance of its authors, contradictions to others’ findings (e.g. attorney), etc. All this information and this thumbnail is contained in the separate article on the plagiarism; Causa Guttenberg. It might be of interest for you, that in the German Wikipedia this thumbnail only appears in GuttenPlag, an article about the crowd platform. It neither appears in the article on Guttenberg nor in the separate article on plagiarism. In addition, to just mention the attorneys’ findings, as according to Causa Guttenberg they identified "23 relevant copyright violations", would violate NPOV, too. Therefore, every information and every use of photos has to address WP:NPOV. As for the RfC, it supported a small expansion of the main article without consensus on the amount of content. Maybe you want to follow the RfC’s final comment (Small expansion since the scandal has its own page, I do not believe there should be much more expansion to the section other than a paragraph shedding a little more light on the subject.) and add some information, e.g. on the different number of findings of GuttenPlag, University, and attorneys.-- Dewritech (talk)  15:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the issue of the Guttenplag image for a moment, we should address the fundamental point: how do WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP apply to Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg? My understanding of your position is this: Causa Guttenberg covers the plagiarism scandal in detail, so that scandal should receive only a short treatment in Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. However, that position seems to be fundamentally at odds with WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP. Quoting from WP:WEIGHT:
 * "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
 * Note that WP:WEIGHT applies to each article, rather than to all of Wikipedia. Within each article, the topics should be treated according to their weight.
 * Quoting from WP:BALASP:
 * "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject."
 * Note that here too, balance should be given to different subjects within each article, not across the entirety of Wikipedia.
 * To give an example of how WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP apply, let's consider the two related articles "Barack Obama" and "Presidency of Barack Obama." The article "Presidency of Barack Obama" covers Barack Obama's Presidency in great detail. However, this does not mean that Obama's Presidency receives only a short treatment in the article "Barack Obama." In "Barack Obama," his Presidency takes up a share of the article proportionate to its importance to his biography (which is, of course, a large share). If we were to dramatically pare down "Barack Obama," using the justification that it's already covered by "Presidency of Barack Obama," we would be violating WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP.
 * The same principle applies in the article "Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg." The plagiarism scandal should be given weight proportional to its importance to his biography. The existence of a separate article, "Causa Guttenberg," which covers the scandal does not mean that the article "Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg" should cover this subject only briefly, any more than the existence of "Presidency of Barack Obama" implies that the Presidency of Barack Obama should receive only short treatment in "Barack Obama."
 * So let's consider whether the plagiarism scandal gets due weight in the article "Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg." Here is a breakdown of a number of different subsections in the article:
 * Center for Strategic and International Studies: 415 words.
 * No Disconnect Strategy: 188 words.
 * NSA scandal: 213 words.
 * Russia: 262 words.
 * Spitzberg Partners: 207 words.
 * Plagiarism scandal and resignation: 83 words.
 * In the media, coverage of the plagiarism scandal dwarfs coverage of Guttenberg's time at CSIS, the "No Disconnect Strategy," his comments on the NSA scandal, his comments on Russia, and his formation of Spitzerg Partners. How can the relative weight given to those subjects in "Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg" possibly be reconciled with WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP?
 * Once we agree on what WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP mean, then we can move on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As for counting words, in the English Wikipedia the articles about Guttenberg contain 9,377 words. 4,639 of these words are related to the plagiarism issue, almost 49.5 percent. Therefore, one in two words on Guttenberg is related to plagiarism, which obviously meets WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP.
 * As for a split, see #6 of WP:CORRECTSPLIT:
 * Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article.
 * Therefore, you may want to work on the summary.-- Dewritech (talk)  13:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Dewritech, it's almost as if you completely ignored the half of my post where I discuss Wikipedia policy. Specifically, the fact that English Wikipedia devotes 4,639 of 9,377 words on Guttenberg to plagiarism is irrelevant to WP:BALASP and WP:WEIGHT. I explained this in detail in my above post. What matters is balance within an article, not balance across English Wikipedia. Please read my post again and then tell me whether you agree.
 * Secondly, you're fundamentally misunderstanding WP:CORRECTSPLIT. The point of splitting an article is summarized by WP:SPLIT as follows:
 * "refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central"
 * Clearly, Causa Guttenberg is too long to be included as a subsection of Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. Including all of Causa Guttenberg would violate WP:BALASP. The point of splitting out Causa Guttenberg is to allow it to be covered in detail on Wikipedia, while allowing Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg to cover its topic with the appropriate balance of subjects. Therefore, when WP:CORRECTSPLIT says that one should
 * "Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article,"
 * what is meant is that one should create a summary that obeys WP:BALASP and WP:WEIGHT. That means that if the subject deserves one third of the parent article, the summary should be one third of the parent article. You are erroneously interpreting "good summary" to mean "short summary." Your interpretation is clearly at odds with WP:BALASP, and if we were to apply it consistently across Wikipedia, it would lead to absurd results. For example, the page on Barack Obama would barely mention his Presidency, since there's a separate article on the Presidency of Barack Obama. In other words, your interpretation of WP:CORRECTSPLIT is clearly in error.
 * -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks you for comment. I'm sorry, but the misinterpretation of WP:CORRECTSPLIT is on your side. Let us read #6 of WP:CORRECTSPLIT in total:


 * 6. Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article. Note: it may be best to prepare this in advance as summarising several pages of text and selecting a single image may not be a trivial task.


 * Therefore, in the process of splitting it's a usual task to summarize several pages into some few paragraphs. And as WP directly links to the sister article, all information is instantly available – and the fact that there is a separate article on a certain topic emphasizes its relevance. We have to keep in mind the close wikilink connection between topic and subtopic!
 * Let me give two examples related to US presidents: as fo Bill Clinton's impeachement, less than 3 percent of the words of his main article relate to this issue; as for Watergate, less than 8 percent of the Richard Nixon article relate to it. Due to the fact that there are seprate sister articles on these issues (Impeachment of Bill Clinton, Watergate scandal, and Impeachment process of Richard Nixon), theses are no violations of WP:WEIGHT or WP:BALASP. Same here, although the summary might be in need of some additional information, which is in line with the RfC you initiated earlier. Therefore, you may just want to follow the given link from WP:SPLIT to WP:SUMMARY. Thank you.-- Dewritech (talk)  15:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote you give above from #6 does not at all support your conclusion. Despite the fact that you say, "Therefore," I honestly see no logical connection between the quote and your conclusion. It looks to me like you cited a sentence from WP:CORRECTSPLIT and then proceeded to write down what you would like policy to be. We need to create a "good summary" of the plagiarism scandal. What length should this "good summary" have? WP:BALASP and WP:WEIGHT dictate that.
 * The examples you give of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon do not support your point. Bill Clinton had a long political career: nearly 11 years as governor of Arkansas and 8 years as President. Obviously, there are numerous political events, policies, crises, etc. that the article on Bill Clinton should cover, and WP:BALASP might dictate that the impeachment should only get a few percent of the article. The same goes with Nixon, a longtime Congressman, Senator, Vice President and President - someone who was continuously prominent in American politics for nearly 30 years. Again WP:BALASP might well dictate that about 8 percent of the article be devoted solely to Watergate. After all, Watergate is competing with some hefty topics for space in the article - topics like: the HUAC hearings, Nixon's Vice Presidency, Nixon's failed run for Presidency, Nixon's successful run for the Presidency, the opening up of relations with China, the Vietnam War, the Middle East (including the 1973 War), Civil Rights. You get the picture - there are a lot of subjects to cover for both Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon, and those articles seem to me to be following WP:BALASP.
 * Notice, as well, that the summaries given of the impeachment scandal in Bill Clinton and Watergate in Richard Nixon are fairly weighty. They are enough to let you know the major players and events in those scandals. By contrast, the plagiarism scandal summary Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg article barely lets you know anything about the scandal. We're basically saying, "If you want to know about the most important event in this person's political career, you have to read a different article."
 * Again, WP:BALASP and WP:WEIGHT apply within a single article. The guidelines are crystal clear. You've been trying to formulate a reading of WP:CORRECTSPLIT that bypasses WP:BALASP and WP:WEIGHT. Using this rationale for ignoring WP:BALASP, you've consistently prevented any expansion of the extremely threadbare coverage of the plagiarism scandal in the article Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. That's why it's so important for you to admit, at this point, that your reading of the guidelines is incorrect, and to allow us to follow policy in the article Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The summary on the impeachement scandal in Bill Clinton clearly follows WP:CORRECTSPLIT. Same with Nixon. Otherwise, according to your interpretation of policies, Clinton's Vietnam War opposition and draft controversy would be more important than the impeachement issue; and – just another example – Energy policy would be more important for the presidency of George W. Bush than the invasion in Afghanistan. Both obviously isn't true at all (I hope we agree on this). But due to the existing sister articles on each of these topics, the articles on Clinton and Bush (and many others) does not violate WP:BALASP and WP:WEIGHT. We must not ignore the close connection between an article and its sister articles. As for Guttenberg, the coverage of the plagiarism issue does not violate WP:BALASP and WP:WEIGHT as with Causa Guttenberg there is a large sister article on this topic, but the summary might be in need of some additional information according to WP:CORRECTSPLIT. Which, by the way, is also in line with your previous RfC.-- Dewritech (talk)  16:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * All you've done is to point out potential problems with balance in the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush Wikipedia entries. They should probably be addressed by the editors. Those balance problems, however, are not anywhere near as extreme as the balance violation in Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg. Can you imagine what the response would be if an editor were to try to reduce the Bill Clinton impeachment scandal to two or three sentences, citing WP:CORRECTSPLIT as a justification? The WP:CORRECTSPLIT policy is not at odds with WP:BALASP and WP:WEIGHT, and is in fact meant to allow editors to balance articles correctly. The "good summary" stipulated by WP:CORRECTSPLIT is a summary that gives the subtopic the appropriate weight, relative to the rest of the article. Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg's English Wikipedia entry does not come anywhere close to doing this. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There are no balance problems in the articles on Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Both are rated WP:GA and follow WP:CORRECTSPLIT offering good summaries of sister articles. Therefore, these articles don't violate policies like WP:WEIGHT or WP:BALASP. Also the article on Guttenberg doesn't violate theses policies. The article's summary on its sister article might be in need of some additional sentences but there is no violation of WP:WEIGHT or WP:BALASP.-- Dewritech (talk)  16:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Norway edits
Dewritech thank you for the opportunity to respond to my edits being reverted. Someone has changed the sentence in the Norway article to "Dano-German House". If you look at the edit history, it has always said "German", and that is what is correct. I'm not going to write a lot about history here as you probably get lots of replies, but basically if you do quick research you will see I'm right. Unfortunately for our region, us Scandinavians always try to out-do each other. We're friends now, but when it comes to history, it's bitter. The royal family is German, but I fear someone are trying to insert their own personal made-up notions instead of facts. "Dano-German" is not a correct or common notion even though this family ruled Denmark for a long time, I am Norwegian myself and I'm just trying to fix the article, after someone changed it. It's supposed to say "German House". Thank you very much for reading this, and please reply on my wall or something, I'm not good at wiki, but I know I get a notification when I get messages/replies on my wall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4642:99B5:0:6486:CAC4:A1EA:2495 (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As the article on the House of Glücksburg also describes it as Dano-German you might want to raise the discussion on Talk:House of Glücksburg.-- Dewritech (talk)  14:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Saint John XXIII
I feel that the edits you removed had nothing wrong with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.18.162 (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You may want to review again.-- Dewritech (talk)  16:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.18.162 (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Tim "Jesus" Jaureguito vs. Tim Jaureguito
 * Fr. Steve "Judas" Sellers vs. Fr. Steve Sellers
 * Attack Helicopter vs. Co-Ed.
 * slogan: Tim Did Nothing Wrong
 * much like the Hogwarts system vs. much like the Oxford colleges system
 * -- Dewritech (talk)  16:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Could you please clarify?
 * Troll is obvious troll. User talk:179.61.250.25 obvious troll... Jim1138 (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Deltopia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deltopia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Deltopia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Lokomotiv Republican Sports Complex
The UEFA Emergency Panel has decided that any football matches played by Crimean clubs organised under the auspices of the Russian Football Union will not be recognised by UEFA.UEFA Emergency Panel decision on Crimean clubs Crimea clubs banned from playing in Russian league by Uefa UEFA decided to prohibit Crimean clubs from playing in competitions organised by the Russian Football Union (RFS) So this stadium is not Russian sports venue, because couldn't be used by the Russian Football Union (RFS). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centreforward24 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

John Wick
I reverted your revert. The anon removed a binary representation of an image which did actually screw up the article, w/o adding anything useful. as the anon claimed. Kleuske (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Restoring unsourced hagiography
Hi Dewritech, I seem to be having a hell of a time lately removing cruft and unsourced content from Wiki articles. Without desiring to edit war, is there a good reason for restoring any of this ? Thank you, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Dewritech, I'd like to know why you reverted with no edit summary myself. --Neil N  talk to me 13:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notification. Please give more details on my revert as I couldn't find it.-- Dewritech (talk)  14:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Dewritech, it was this one. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  14:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Stanley Leopold Fowler, was a tall, fair man, quietly spoken who loved art, engineering, architecture, landscaping, Glenn Miller and above all his family"? Drmies (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right! My revert was too fast. My humble apologies.-- Dewritech (talk)  15:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you--I appreciate that. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He was also 'a modest man'; he certainly was. He refused to leave a trace of himself in reliable sources... O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  15:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Coconut
Dewritech, I'm sorry to hear that you think that my contribution to the coconut page is not constructive. For this I'd like to explain to you why I have tried to make the certain change I did to the coconut page. Under the production and cultivation tab, it states there that in south Texas, coconuts can grow in the Brownsville area, but fail to produce viable fruit due to cold snaps. Being a Brownsville native, I can say for certain that this detail is wrong. Although coconuts aren't very widespread in the Rio Grande Valley, they do have the capacity to grow to fruiting maturity. If pictures are needed to serve as evidence of this, I'm more than happy to provide them. Thank you. Borjrob1226 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

General der Nachrichtenaufklärung
Hi Dewritech, Thanks. That was good work. scope_creep (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Japanese mon (currency)
Why did you remove the stub tag? It's technically still a stub as it hasn't been reassessed. --2405:4800:148C:A802:A4AE:DF30:1213:2EED (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You may want to read WP:STUB.-- Dewritech (talk)  11:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hyphens
They exist to serve a purpose. In some cases a compound adjective and nouns that utilize a hyphen can be replaced with a single word (e.g. team-mates vs. teammates), but not always. You recent edits to Owen Maddock (and identical edits you made in 2014 to the same page, e.g here) are a case in point. In this context, a home-builder is not the same thing as a homebuilder. The former is a person who builds things at home (in contrast to, say, a factory producer), the latter a person who build homes. Please make sure that you understand the context and implications of your edits before making them. Pyrop e  13:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Estee Lauder Edit Deletion
Hello citation was added. Maybe you could help edit so it works correctly, and revert to my original edit? Thanks &#39;Pedia Trician (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Ansys article draft
Hi, I work for ANSYS and see that the current article is a great start. I understand that Wikipedia’s conflict of interest rules require that I request another editor consider implementing my draft. The current Ansys article is incomplete and out of date. The proposed draft is attached here. Kelliatansys (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 World Championships in Athletics – Men's 4 × 400 metres relay: Difference between revisions
Hi, I reverted your edit where you added a hyphen to "3 metre". The use of a hyphen is not used in this context in (British) English so not appropriate to add to this article. Any questions please let me know. Thanks. Zarcadia (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notification.-- Dewritech (talk)  09:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Using AWB to correct typos
Hi there. I know it wasn't your intent, but can you be careful when using AWB or other tools to clean up "typos". I put it in quotes because some of them are correct and not typos. For example in this edit you changed ie to i.e. which is not correct. Ie is a Japanese word and particle and is not short form for example. I would ask that you check any alterations made by these tools manually to ensure that they are actually correct in the context and slow down on making them as well. Tools, like bots, aren't always correct and can create a bit of a mess for others to clean up. Cheers. Canterbury Tail  talk  12:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right. Thanks for fixing.--<span style="font-weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 2px; padding: 1px 3px;"> Dewritech (talk)  10:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Dewritech: I reverted your edit to History of the Spanish language because Spanish words were mistakenly changed (e.g. "omre" -> "more"). I would echo what said above about taking the time to manually check semi-automated edits. Thanks, Kbseah (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

"New Mexico City street stage"
Hi Dewtrich,

Could you please pay more attention to detail in your edits? Here you changed "new Mexico City street stage" to "New Mexico City street stage". However, if you put the sentence in context, it is referring to something that is new in Mexico City, not something in New Mexico. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Please monitor and protect the Mangalore article from Vandalism
I request you to give protection to the Mangalore article and monitor it, regarding vandalism. No Administrator is protecting this article and it could be delisted (removed) from the list of Featured Articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#Mangalore 223.186.38.187 (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hello Dewritech. 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. <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk ) </b> 23:59, 29 December 2017 (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.

New Years new page backlog drive
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


 * The total number of reviews completed for the month.
 * The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: New Year Backlog Drive results:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
 * We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
 * We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
 * Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

New Page Review Newsletter No.10
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages! ACTRIAL:
 * ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing
 * Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines
 * The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking  place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
 * While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

Thanks for your edits, but I made one little revert...
Thanks for your efforts! Guys like you who've made it your mission to clean up after slobs like myself never get thanked enough!

There is, however, one little part of an edit that you made to Spacetime that I reverted, with an explanation embedded in the source markup. Against the general guidelines, I added a space between a punctuation mark and a reference. Here is why, as I explained it in the source: &lt;!--Before deleting the space between this and the following HTML comment, please note that the use of space was intentional. This seems to be a case when beginning the reference immediately after the punctuation mark can lead to undesirable results.--&gt; &lt;!--The list of paginations in the template is so long, that, depending on line length, we can get *very* ugly breaks between the words "quantum" and "entanglement". I did try using a zero-width space character (&amp;#8203;), but the zero-width space doesn't work in all browsers.--&gt; Cheers! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:
 * WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 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.

Deletion tags
 * Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:
 * A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons
 * There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. 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.

Paid editing - new policy
 * Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines
 * The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English News Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 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, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
 * Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
 * The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive! Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
 * Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: NPPbarnstar SE.png. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: RR3217-0014 100 rubles USSR 1989 Gold avers.png, Swiss-Commemorative-Coin-1991-CHF-250-reverse.png, Coin of Kazakhstan 500Thinker averse.png, US-$1000-SC-1878-FR-346a-PROOF.jpg.
 * Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Ambra Medda
Thanks for looking over the Medda entry. Concerning the advert tag, do you have a specific example in the text that could be changed? I read the info page but am still not sure how to improve the entry. Maybe you have some suggestions?Abonzz (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing Christa Lehmann, Dewritech.

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

"Unattributed poor or machine translation from de.Wiki"

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

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:14, 28 June 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.

Leopold Fischer
Thank you for your very prompt review of Leopold Fischer...Jamesmcardle(talk) 09:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Blockstack for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blockstack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Blockstack until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding stubs
Hi, Thank you for your work adding stubs to articles! I did notice that you added stubs and orphan tags to a few disambiguation pages. As per WP:STUB and WP:ORPHAN, DAB pages don't need to be tagged as such. Thanks! Jmertel23 (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Jmertel123. Thanks for notification. It was my AWB error. Thanks for fixing!--<span style="font-weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 2px; padding: 1px 3px;"> Dewritech (talk)  17:23, 11 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)

Merger discussion for Aarhus metropolitan area
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Aarhus metropolitan area&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. TSventon (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, you put an orphan tag on AMA, I have had a look at the article and think it should be merged, please follow the link if you are interested.TSventon (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

ANSR Consulting
Hello, thank you for tagging the page ANSR Consulting. I re-read the page and removed the advert-sounding words - was a flaw in my judgment and not intentional :) Can you please take a look at the page and see if I have missed something? Thanks for helping out. Csgir (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)