User talk:Eagleash/Archive 2019

Request on 22:02:36, 8 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by The Baniano
Hi

This is about the draft article 'Stanisław Kruciński'.

The reason for putting him on Wiki is not his career as a competitor. He had one, though, but without big wins in competitions.

The reason is that he is a renowned Polish fencing master. Stanisław Kruciński has been the head coach of the Polish Fencing Association during the golden age of that sport in Poland (late sixties - early seventies). He has contributed a great deal to those successes and for that he deserves an article on Wikipedia.

Moreover, he has been active internationally as a trainer (in Mexico, Austria and Venezuela) and should have a wikipedia article in English, the internaional language of today.

Please reconsider

The Baniano The Baniano (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for leaving a message, with your concerns. There really isn't enough in the page, as it stands at the moment, to justify its inclusion in the encyclopedia. Noted that he has been head coach of the national federation, but there is little content / context in this respect. There doesn't seem to be a sport-specific guideline in this instance and we are therefore relying on WP:GNG to decide upon acceptance. As head coach, what did he achieve? Did he lead the team at the Olympics for example or the European Games or World Championships or other major events? If so, what results were achieved, was he a particularly good or even a particularly poor coach? whatever the case, more coverage of him is needed in reliable independent third-party sources to help to establish notability and support the additional points you include in your post above. If more coverage can be found and referenced content added the page can be re-submitted but I would not re-review myself but leave it to another WP:AFC participant to consider. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi

I made some research and found another source. I added more information to the article and resubmitted.

As a fencer, he won twice the silver medal in team saber. During his term as head coach, it was the golden age of Polish fencing.

1968 Olympics in Mexico men: -gold in saber for Jerzy Pawłowski -bronze in team foil -bronze in team epée

1969 World championships Havana men: -gold in epée for Bohdan Andrzejewski -silver in team foil -silver in team saber

1970 World championships Ankara men: -silver in team epée -bronze in foil for Marek Dąbrowski -bronze in saber

1971 World championships Vienna men: -silver in saber for Jerzy Pawłowski -silver in foil for Marek Dąbrowski women: -bronze in team foil

1972 Olympics in Munich -gold in foil for Witold Woyda -gold in team foil

All can be checked on Wikipedia If that's not an exceptionally good head coach, then who is one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Baniano (talk • contribs) 20:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. I have noted the additions to the page and made some minor adjustments. However, I think you would need to work some of the information in your post above, into the article. There is still not enough (in my opinion) to demonstrate notability satisfactorily. Adding the titles won by him or others under his tutelage or management will help. However, please note that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference (see WP:UGC). When you feel the page is ready for mainspace, click the resubmit button in the pink notice. As mentioned above, I will leave it for another AfC participant to review. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes . Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Levi Lumeka
I'm not convinced he is part of the first team squad. He's listed in the U23 section on the club website, so I think we should wait until he appears in the squad before putting him back on the squad template. Spike &#39;em (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a hangover from last season, when he was in the squad after appearing against Burnley. It was copied out with this edit so all I did was remove the mark-up. If you want to copy it out again (pro-tem) or even remove it altogether it's OK. He may go back out on loan fairly quickly or get a permanent move in the window. He's had a good run in the U23s so could also be close to a first team chance. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: Copied out again...for the time being. Eagleash (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

North Clifton copyright
As you can see the text came from Harby, Nottinghamshire (diff) and was from 1853 so its likely that it would be in public domain anyway. The text was added to the Harby article in 2008 and has been prominent in the article and noted its source so its likely it would have noticed in the over 10 years of its existence there.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The text actually came from here, which was flagged up at review by the copy-vio detector. No connection is made by this to other Wiki articles. After a quick check, the page was accepted. The note was to alert other reviewers that the article was already under consideration. Eagleash (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * PS (For future reference) if you have not already done so, see WP:CWW for information on copying within Wikipedia. Eagleash (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank's yes there wasn't a diff (since either the destination or source page has to be edited first) but I could have used a permanent link.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 11:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Atari Computing
Thanks for reviewing, although I have to disagree with your judgement. Atari Computing was the last printed UK Atari magazine. Compared to the Kelstar, which has a Wikipedia entry but no independent sources or well known authors. How is it possible to add more sources about a magazine that's been discontinued for 19 years? As is, while I do respect your decision, it'll probably be my first (and last) new article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJaap (talk • contribs) 20:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree, it was the last magazine to cater to the st-line of computers, and had worldwide distribution. It may not seem significant to you as a motorcycle nut, but to atarians it certainly is. The ISSN number should be more than enough proof the magazine existed, and as the last magazine, published for 5 years, it is certainly significant in the history of Atari. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.206.27 (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This is absurd. The magazine is of no significance in the world of magazines, but this is a piece of atari history, refuting the article because some anal interpretation of a sub category guideline is just... bizarr. It should be judged based on the role it had in atari history.11:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.136.40.91 (talk)
 * Thank you for leaving me a message with your concerns. The bar at WP:NMAGAZINE is a relatively high one; rightly so, as many magazines do not merit an encyclopedic article. As the magazine guideline has not been met, satisfying notability via the general notability guidelines would be the only way the page could be accepted. There is little, if anything in the page to demonstrate this could be possible. It would require significant in depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. All that is available here is an announcement of the publication and an interview with the head of the publishing house. Neither of these are independent. Unfortunately, not every topic can be covered in a Wikipedia article and although, as you mention, a page exists for Kelstar, it does not meet Wikipedia's standards and could well be deleted if it cannot be improved. WP:OSE is also a factor here. If you are able to find, and add, multiple good sources, you are free to re-submit the article; I shall not review it further but leave it to another AfC particpant to comment. Just to re-emphasise, Wikipedia should only contain articles which are properly notable. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: The two IPs adding comments, both geolocate to the same general area and have made only one edit (to the article concerned) outside of this thread. Eagleash (talk) 22:12, 3 March 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)

Draft: Bluetech (March 28)
Thank you for your guidance on this article creation. I have added references to both mainstream media sources as well as several references to coverage by publications devoted to electronic music sub-culture per the Notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopefully this isnt taken (talk • contribs) 28 March 2019 02:53 (UTC)
 * Hello and thank you for leaving me a message. I note that some 'sources' have been added to the page. However, it looks as though the majority of them are basically links to interviews with the subject and not really what is needed to support an article. What is required, is facts about the subject and any available sources used to support those statements: the fact that he has been interviwed by 'X' or 'Y' magazine etc. is not notable. In fact it does not help with creating an article very much (if at all). Wikipedia does not rely on, or have very much interest in, what somebody has to say about themselves, but on what has been written about the subject in independent reliable secondary sources. This is just one of the ways in Which Wiki tries to ensure neutrality. If the article can be expanded and the sourcing improved, you are free to submit it again (in fact you can submit it again at any time... but beware of doing so tendentiously. If and when, it is re-submitted, I shall not review it further but leave for input from another AfC participant. See also WP:BLP.


 * On another note please don't change the date and time of talk page messages. This forms part of the page history and is important for several reasons. Thank you. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

K
Thanx Bayanda Elona (&#34;Flaxy BayG&#34;) Gola (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I created a page "Indictment and Arrest of Julian Assange" and within minutes of my posting you'd read, made minor edits and reviewed! I was impressed at how quickly that happened since it usually takes a dozen hours for my newly created pages to be reviewed. Thanks for being so ready.

ObongiFrank (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC) 
 * Thanks; no problem. Eagleash (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Jon Toral
Hi. Jon Toral was only in the youth teams of Barcelona. The category refers to FC Barcelona footballers (note that even B and C are different). We are doing something wrong if we intend to include non-professional young players in these categories. Regards. --Zigurat (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Youth players are included in the club category where no separate subcat exists, which is the case with the majority of clubs. For an example see Hakeeb Adelakun. This element of categorisation has been discussed at WT:FOOTY in the past. The player should have been placed in the appropriate subcat at the first edit, not just the cat removed and then further disruption to the page (and talk pages) before the subcat was belatedly added several edits later. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

History
Thank you for your reply. Life today is not mean but also "not to easy".

145.129.136.48 (talk) 15:59, 4 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)

Need assistance for a draft
Hi, I am new to wikipedia. I would like you to help me on this article User:Jennifer Jaynes/sandbox/Joey Attawia. I have disclosed COI as per wikipedia rules. Thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.57.27.212 (talk • contribs) 23 May 2019 04:37 (UTC)
 * Hello, There is a draft draft in existence (here) as well as the subsequently created sandbox here. The draft has been submitted via WP:AFC and what should happen now is that a reviewer will consider the draft and accept or decline it, providing feedback on where improvements are required in the latter case. The sandbox draft seems to be a duplicate of the AFC submission and should probably be deleted as it is superfluous. You can do this by placing  at the top of the page which will request speedy deletion.


 * The draft may not pass Wikipedia's quite stringent notability guidelines. Although there are multiple references verifying content, not many of them give WP:SIGCOV of him from mainstream reliable sources. I have some doubts about notability and although I am an AFC participant, having worked on the page to some degree, I will not consider it but leave for another reviewer for their input.


 * Please log-in to your account when editing and sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Alexandra Phillips MEP and Alexandra Phillips MEP
Hello. I noticed you'd edited a page on a newly elected UK MEP who could be confused with one with an identical name. I think some of the disambiguation issues have been resolved, but there is a question of titling one or both pages. I'd like to invite you to comment at Talk:Alexandra L. Phillips. --Cedderstk 21:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Avni Hasani
The edits aren't constructive, but also don't constitute vandalism - so bear in mind 3RR. I'd just leave it, the article is likely going to get deleted anyway. GiantSnowman 07:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Clear competency/COI issue. GiantSnowman 11:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Ralph Allen (painter, born 1926)
Hey! I see that you declined the above draft. I did so as well, but after a conversation at my talk page, it became apparent that the painter probably meets WP:ARTIST #4d (National Gallery of Canada and Art Gallery of Ontario). --MrClog (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, let me know if you intend to accept it and I'll revert my own edit which will in effect re-submit it. (I've accepted enough drafts where an earlier reviewer has missed a guideline point by now, I would have thought!) Eagleash (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , sure, if you revert your edit, I'll have a look at it to see if it matches all the requirements besides notability. --MrClog (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've resubmitted it on behalf of the creator. I should look at it soonish... might get declined again. Eagleash (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

New message from Path slopu
 PA TH  SL OP U  16:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
I realized my mistake and I apologize for that. You taught me the true meaning of wikipedia. For this I'm thankful to you. You are just a fabulous editor. From now onwards you will see no request related to Shamsheer Vayalil's article. I quit now. May God bless you! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.230.166.106 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 14 June 2019 18:00 (UTC)

To respond
Sir, as per your request I have posted my request on Talk page of Shamsheer Vayalil but two hours passed and no one responded to it. Sir, please make the desire edit. Thanks.(223.230.146.67 (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC))

To restore information
Sir, any editor has wiped off major part of Early life paragraph of Dr. Shamsheer Vayalil. Please! restore that. Thanks. (223.230.133.231 (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC))
 * ❌ The content was trivial and unsourced and another editor has therefore removed it. Please discuss it with them. Stop posting in multiple locations and new posts go at the bottom of talk pages. Eagleash (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. (223.230.133.231 (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC))
 * Sir,in the occupation column present in Dr. Shamsheer Vayalil Wikipedia infobox, add the link of VPS Healthcare group. So, that anyone can easily get information of the healthcare group by clicking on its link.
 * ❌ Links to a person's own official website are considered acceptable and usually to a company website in the case of a page about an organisation. Think this is not acceptable as might be considered advertising or promotional and also Wikipedia is not a directory. Eagleash (talk) 16:16, 18 June 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)

FC or F.C.?
Cheers for the note. I looked at the article about AWB’s transfer and that also refers to the club as “Crystal Palace FC” (no full stops) not just in the opening sentence but as the first thing in the body of the whole article. I really think we should just get rid of the full stops from all article titles, that would stop this from being a problem. – PeeJay 12:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, I see what you mean about the blue bar now. I was viewing the page on mobile, so I had no clue what you were on about. Still, it seems like whenever the club refers to itself in prose, they do so without the dots. I don't view either instance as more or less official than the other, although the club logo does use dots, which could be viewed as the most official of all. That said, I would say common usage trumps what goes in a club badge, which sometimes doesn't even include the club's name. Anyway, for AWB's article, I'm just going by the custom of what I normally do in citations. – PeeJay 16:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about Ahmed Ghanam Article
Hello Mr. Eagleash there is someone trying to delete an article you reviewed earlier. Can you check the problem please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Ghanam there is a lot of references I can add if you want and this person is famous + this page is a translation of another page in wikipedia arz here is his social links

https://twitter.com/ahmedHGhanam https://facebook.com/ahmedhghanam0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adham Hamam (talk • contribs) 18:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello and thank you for leaving me a message with your concerns. I did not actually review the page (although I am both new page reviewer and WP:AFC participant). I merely copy-edited the text in line with the MoS. Obviously the person who nominated it has concerns about WP:NOTABILITY and I don't feel able to comment (although I have reservations). The references are not from English sources and it is therefore difficult for non-speakers to judge them. Once nominated the AfD will run its course and you should make your points at the discussion. Whatever your feelings about the notability of the subject, the Wikipedia community will have the final say on whether the article should be kept or not.
 * Generally speaking social media is not acceptable on Wikipedia either as a reference or in the external links section.
 * Please do not remove the AfD template as this is seen as disruptive and could lead to the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank You
@Eagleash thank you for your help. I think that my page "Arbor Investments" should be submitted for review now. Is there any way to expedite the review process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprassas4 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I note that the page was submitted shortly before you posted here and that it has already been declined for being too like an advertisement. I am surprised at the speed of the review but not at the outcome. I cannot disagree with the reviewing editors comments, The page is pretty promotional in tone. All content that could be considered promotional should be removed. Again, if you have not done so, please read WP:NCORP for guidelines. I would suggest that you try to find articles about similar companies and see how they are composed and / or structured. The review process is a little 'haphazard' there is no order and not really any way to speed the process up.
 * On a separate note, do you have a connection to the organisation? If so you must read WP:COI and in particular WP:PAID and make the necessary disclosures. In any event please post here to answer the question as to whether there is a connection. Thank you.
 * Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not have a connection with the firm, I just chose it as my first Wiki article. Thank you for the suggestions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprassas4 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

http://orthochristian.com/calendar/ is a NEW address of now non-existent http://days.pravoslavie.ru/en/Days/ !
Better make a bot which can change 1) this part of URL in whole Wikipedia and 2) in the next section of url - like http://days.pravoslavie.ru/en/Days/20140419.htm - figures of year - 2014 - to 2015 or latest till 2019 and 3) htm - to html! Александр Васильев (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If there has been a change in the url and you are editing a page to reflect this, please ensure that you do so correctly, that you use the edit summary to explain your actions and that you check the page for errors before and after saving. Your edit here produced a highly visible ref error, which should have been fixed before leaving the page. Thank you.
 * I have no knowledge of, or interest in, creating 'bots'. Eagleash (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank You. Sorry, I made a mistake - I left "htm" instead of "html" whereas all the rest links contained "html". Now it's all correct. Александр Васильев (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The link seems to be working correctly. The problem which flagged up the error was a missing closing tag. Eagleash (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Message From Esi_Gonzalez
Hi Eagleash. I hope you're okay. I had my sandbox page declined by you earlier today due to it looking Arabic, and I liked to explain a little tad about it. Well basically it was written in Persian, and it's about two topics: a) Nucleolus and b) Single Nucleotide Polymorphism. I'd like to edit the Persian pages for the aforementioned articles, hence I wrote them in Persian. But since I have to make a "few" refinements in order for them to be ready for publication in the main pages (e.g. adding illustrations, getting the formatting of the paragraphs, citations, and references right), I left them in my sandbox. That's it.

Thank you for your time, regards, Esi Gonzalez (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Esi Gonzalez
 * Thank you for your message. If the content had just been in your sandbox (where it still is) that would have been OK. However, it had been submitted for review, which it should not have been, in a language other than English. You can continue to work on the article in your sandbox (or in draftspace) if you ultimately intend to create pages in the English Wikipedia but please do not re-submit here if the content is not in English. Thank you. Submissions in languages other than English will always be declined. If you have not already done so, please read WP:YFA and the notability guidelines together with WP:MOS. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Help? Someone putting incorrect information repeatedly on Saleen Page
Hi- hope you can help? The Saleen page: someone keeps putting false information (stating the business is owned by someone who only has a limited license for China). The entire company is solely and wholly owned by Steve Saleen. How to I fix this permanently? (I am authorized expert for Saleen corporation) THANKS!!! Mmcogood (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, and thanks for leaving me a message. There are several problems which emerge from your edits. Firstly, the content you removed was referenced and was replaced by unsourced statements. Verifiability is a core Wikipedia policy and unsourced statements are very likely to be challenged and / or removed. Statements need to be sourced to reliable independent secondary sources. Wikipedia has little, if any, interest in what a subject has to say about itself, or any source connected to it but instead, reports upon what has been written in secondary sources. Personal knowledge etc. is original research and not acceptable. Please see WP:REFB for a guide to adding references.
 * Further, if you have a connection to the topic, you must read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the necessary disclosures. This is not optional. You should then make edit requests at the article talk page and provide sources for the changes you wish to see made. This is not seen as a reflection upon yourself, but is one of the ways in which Wikipedia attempts to ensure neutrality. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Waiting for acceptance
Hello. You kindly reviewed my page "Ahmed Moharram" and declined it for the lack of references. I added references and re-submitted, then you made some further edits. May I know Why is the page taking a long time from you in the re-review process? (Your initial review took less than a day). Ibrahimsabotaleb120 (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello and thank you for leaving me a message. I reviewed your page following your post at the help desk. This is not a typical occurrence but I felt there was no point in allowing the draft to linger in its unreferenced state and leaving (or making) work for other editors. As you say, I made some minor modifications but I habitually do not review or re-review a page I have worked on. There are over 4,000 pages awaiting review and this can take 2 months or more. There is no set order and there are not really enough available reviewers - who are just volunteers like any other editor and do what they can when outside constraints allow. As previously mentioned, he is likely to be notable having held a senior position but I am of the opinion that more inline sources might be necessary. There are a number of statements in the draft for which coverage would likely be available. Depending on the reviewer, the draft could conceivably be rejected for that reason and if accepted, it would likely be tagged for more sources. Eagleash (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

hello
you / Information icon Despite the advice given at the help desk, it appears that you created three articles in mainspace without addressing the issues brought up in replies you were given. The pages are not up to the standard that Wikipedia requires and will require a considerable amount of work and research by other editors (which they should not have to do) to bring them up to an acceptable level. Please study the links in the welcome message above and see WP:REFB for how to correctly add references. Statistics belong in the infobox. Also, the pages seem to be a 'copy and paste' move. Typically this is prohibited on Wikipedia (see WP:CWW for more information. Eagleash (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

me /I do not use transcripts in the script. But I'm Iraqi and my English is not 100% good so write all articles in one style and style. I swear to you that all the information is through the search I do about the characters for more than two days without taking comfort. I would like all existing editors to help me improve the articles I write

I have articles in Arabic Wikipedia and I know all the laws. But I wrote the draft by mistake and now you deleted it. Will this affect the articles you have written? I have another question. If the article has been reviewed and accepted, it will be deleted or installed

Can I contact you directly?

thank you for helping me

Thank you for your advice. But I swear to you I read all the tips and try to apply them in all ways but you have to continue my advice and help me I thank you very much

Thank you my friend you are doing a wonderful job. You help me as a good worker. I hope you will help me complete the article in the right way. Thank you. I will add a new link to the player with Iraq's first team

akram.altameemi


 * Note: Despite suggestions, all three articles are still not up to standard. The Iraq PL is not WP:FPL and sources in respect of international appearances (standard thereof) are lacking. Eagleash (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

To add new link
Sir, I found the appropriate link (as per you guidance). I provided it at the help desk, in the "References not working" paragraph. Please! do have a look. Thank you. (106.207.16.151 (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC))
 * I have looked at the link supplied. I do not feel it should be added as it is not independent of him. Eagleash (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. (223.230.161.172 (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC))
 * Sir, it might be inappropriate. So, I found another link which contains information about him only. The link is [].Hope this will surely work. Please! replace the reference 26 which a dead link with the link I provided above.
 * LinkedIn is not used as a reference as it is user generated (basically 'social-media'). Please see WP:UGC. Eagleash (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

1) [] (this link is of AMU website). (After you open the page look paragraph number 18). 2) [] this link is of trusted and reliable news website TOI). (After you open the page look paragraph number 3).
 * Sir, lastly I am providing you with two most reliable links. Choose which suits you better:

Hopefully this will finally work. Also remove the non functional reference number 26 with the functional one which you find appropriate among both the links which I provided above. Thank you. (223.230.157.95 (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC))
 * ✅ ToI link is independent. Eagleash (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. g(223.230.157.95 (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC))
 * Sir, can you tell that references(link) 18,24,28 & 29 are independent or not? If anyone is not independent then please let me know I will try to find it's reliable alternative. The most important check reference number 10 also. Hope you will give your valuable time.
 * Personally, I would not challenge them. Eagleash (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. (223.230.157.95 (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC))
 * Ok fine, then please tell me the way to identify that a link is independent or not?
 * In the general run of things, anything with a connection to the subject cannot be considered independent. For more information please read WP:RS and WP:IS. Eagleash (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

 * Thank you: however, should mention that I am not an administrator just a 'regular' editor like any other. Remember new posts go at the bottom. Eagleash (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks once again! (223.230.143.123 (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC))
 * Sir, I apologize for my mistake. Few days earlier the mess which I created in Dr. Shamsheer's article, for that I must have been punished. Any other editor would have blocked me permanently from editing Wikipedia after this blunder but you are not among them. You made me realize my mistake. Till now I couldn't learn how to edit but I learnt how and where to post request for an edit. All credit goes to you.👍Hope you will forgive me.
 * I have given my clarification on help desk. Please do have a look. Thank you. (223.230.143.123 (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC))
 * I have seen your response at the help desk. A point you should take note of is that Wikipedia does not exist as a 'fansite' where persons interested in a subject can post praise and or opinions. Wikipedia reports on what has been written about a topic in independent reliable sources. This will include both positive and negative information and no one editor will have any sort of control over what an article contains. If some negative information about Viyalil comes to light, it will be included as long as it is reliably sourced and will remain in the article on that basis.
 * Please remember that Wikipedia is a site run entirely by volunteers and all editors, with exception of administrators, have equal rights and responsibilities. (Admins. have some extra 'tools' which enable them to sort out problems...including disruptive editing). Wikipedia does not have a 'staff' or a panel of editors available to fulfill requests. Persons who wish to contribute to the encyclopedia are encouraged to learn to do so themselves. This is something you have said, in the past, that you are unwilling to do. But you consistently ask others to do things for you. Most editors are willing to help out but not over a long period of time without improvement in your own editing skills. Eagleash (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Review of Resideo article
Hello Eagleash, thank you for moving the Resideo article and for your improvements to it. Since I am a COI editor, a truly appreciate your assistance, and welcome any suggestions that will make it a better article. Nellie04 (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. It seems the draft I moved is a duplicate of one already in the review process. That would be OK (generally) if it was just in your sandbox without having been submitted. You need to develop the original page which seems to have 'just' Resideo as the title (without 'Technologies') and it might be best if the duplicate page was deleted. You can do this by adding  to the top of the page.
 * I note your comment re 'COI'; if you have not done so already, you must read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make any necessary declarations. This is not optional. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am very appreciative of your helpful guidance. I made a mistake by publishing my sandbox. I have taken your advice and added the deletion code to the top of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Resideo_Technologies page. I will focus on developing the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Resideo page going forward, which was recently declined due to questions about notability. Would you mind taking a look at the draft and recommending areas where I could improve the sourcing? I would really appreciate any insight you can provide. Nellie04 (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, I've looked at the draft and made some minor alterations per MOS. I'm afraid WP:NCORP is an area of Wikipedia I am not that strong on. You *could* ask for assistance at the articles for creation help desk. I'm afraid the only advice I can offer is to seek out articles in respect of similar enterprises and look at how they are structured, remove anything that might be considered in any way promotional and see if there are any more 'sources' out there which could give more WP:SIGCOV. Sorry not to be of more help. Eagleash (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Florence Biennale
Thank you for sending me material. I have written to the editor asking for clarification as I cannot see what was wrong. Certainly not all the content, however. It seems that he has something personal against the organisation, but I am an artist participating in the Florence Biennale and want that page sorted in a decent way. I am not the only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art-Culture-Languages (talk • contribs) 11:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. Wikipedia can be somewhat obscure for new users. A very important point is that the encyclopedia reports on what has been written about a subject in independent, secondary reliable sources. It will not accept original research, unsubstantiated opinion or anything copied from elsewhere on the web. (Copyright violations). Promotional material will also be reverted.
 * Another important issue is that if you have a connection to a subject you *must* read both WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the necessary declarations. Technically, with a 'COI' you should not edit a page where there is a connection directly but make edit requests at the article talk page. This is not a reflection upon individual editors but one of the ways in which Wiki tries to ensure neutrality. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not think that the editor concerned has any sort of vested interest in the page. I cannot see that they have edited it previously. I would think it is likely that your changes showed up on 'recent changes patrol' and to be honest, I would probably done the same thing, but tried to provide a more detailed explanation. Eagleash (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey
Hey, I am trying to publish a wiki page (Dan Tepper), it says that my page cant be published because of COI. I’m not getting paid to publish this page, I’m doing it because he is the best handball player in Israel, and as a fan of him (and the sport of handball), I think he deserves an article about him, I’m having trouble publishing the page and I don’t know what to do in order to continue. Can you please help me? Thank a lot (: Tepper4141 (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for leaving me a message. First of all, please don't ask similar questions in multiple locations; all editors here are volunteers and their time can sometimes be limited. What you need to do is read carefully the COI advice left at your talk page and follow the instructions there, making the necessary disclosures. A COI is a manageable issue and if handled correctly is unlikely to stop a page for a notable subject from being accepted. The notability issue is of greater importance. The subject *must* satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines. Please see the comments left at the draft and bring the page up to standard as well as satisfying the COI issues. COI doesn't necessarily mean 'paid' but any connection to the subject. A family member is a clear COI. Please don't continue to ignore advice. Thank you. (UTC) Eagleash (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Ive been reviewing the notes, and I cant understand what I need to do in order to get my article published. 1. COI, when I’m reading all of the Wikipedia guides about COI, i cant find anything that tells me what i need to do, because I’m not being paid for what i do, I don’t understand what kind (and where), of declaration i need to do. 2. Ive added the references as requested in the specified places. Do i need to add more? Did i do it wrong?

Hope you would help me, and again, thank you very much for your answer and contribution, i really appreciate it! Thank you, Yoel.
 * At the conflict of interest page there is a heading "How to disclose a COI" – click here to be taken directly to that section. There, you will see "Connected contributor template" click on 'show' and the template will display. Copy and paste that template (all that's within the double curly brackets) to the top of the article talk page. Delete all the italic text within the template but *nothing else* and replace your username with your actual username. Then save the talk page. As mentioned before COI does not necessarily mean 'paid' but any connection.
 * The references are not inline as is required. They need to be put in place where they substantiate statements in then article. E.g. plays for national team. . Don't leave spaces before or between refs.
 * I would once again suggest the use of an infobox. This is pretty conventional for sporting articles. There is a link to the appropriate template to use in the comments at the draft.
 * Notability may still be an issue, there does not seem to be a sport-specific guideline for handball and we are therefore relying on WP:GNG. Wikipedia requires WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent sources. Most of the sources seem to be routine coverage, such as moving clubs etc. However, if he has played at the top level internationally he may achieve notability in the Wikipedia sense.
 * Eagleash (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Ryan Inniss
There is no requirement to update the body of an article (eg stats table) after updating the summary section of a Wiki page. Please do not threaten Wilkipedia contributors. Stats tables are more appropriate and already more up to date on the specialist football stats sites usually linked from a player wiki page - but feel free to duplicate and maintain them in Wiki if you wish Zebroski (talk)
 * Yes I fully intend to continue to do the job properly. Eagleash (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's important to you and you have the time to consider that your 'job' then carry on, no problem - but do not threaten contributors. Also, reading and/or deleting comments from a talk page does not imply acceptance so please do not lie to justify your opinion and threats.Zebroski (talk)
 * No threats  have been issued, merely an observation made.
 * I would think that a majority of footy project members regard it as their ‘job’ to ensure that pages are updated correctly. And, it must be better to have a page accurate and up to date.
 * You were asked, in a reasonable manner, to fully update pages but you deleted the message (which indicates that you have read it) and carried on as before.
 * I see no reason why readers should be expected to click an external link to find information.
 * Accusations of lying are edging toward a personal attack. Please don’t do this; it also can result in difficulties. If you think something is incorrect, that is what you should say.
 * I feel this discussion has now reached an impasse / conclusion. I shall carry on with my constant attempts to improve Wikipedia and leave you to do the same. Eagleash (talk) 20:07, 8 September 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)

Authority control
what does that template do? Govvy (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It links to identifiers and the like at Wikidata. See Template:Authority control for more information. Although not particularly useful for footballers, I've laways understood that it should be used for biographical articles. Eagleash (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

My edit you removed from the Reece Webb-Foster page.
Don’t tell me to provide no source! He’s my half brother so I clearly know much more than you. Luke Mills1996 (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reports on what has been written in independent reliable sources. It does not take into account uncorroborated information from editors stating or claiming a connection. Persons with a connection to a subject should not edit the page in question. See WP:COI and also WP:OR. Further, do not threaten another editor as you seem to do with this edit. Eagleash (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Reece Webb-Foster
Cheers! GiantSnowman 09:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello ,

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

Steaua Bucharest
I suggest to back off from dab the entry. It need discussion in WP:Footy that the past history should allocated to FC Steaua Bucharest or the refounded CSA Steaua București (football). Matthew hk (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a vague recollection of some discussion, now you mention it. However, this came up on the dab-solver tool which highlights links to dab pages. The only 2 options shown were a) the overall organistaion and b) the football arm thereof. If you think it is wrong then undo it. Although, this will probably reinstate a link to the dab page possibly leading someone else to fix it again. Or, if you can do so, fix it so it doesn't point to a dab page. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

André Gomes
lol, I tried to put in exactly what you wrote! That's funny to me! You beat me to it on that edit! heh. Govvy (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I got an EC with your edit clarifying the destination of the card. Eagleash (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * O well, I am just finishing up my tesco sandwich, back to work for me! Govvy (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Fine work from you two, and counting! Now, to reply Mr. Eagleash: i was only striving for coherence in the display of refs, and i have often seen BBC displaying as a "publisher". I kind of agree with that, as said in my summary (that way, it is not mistaken for a newspaper, which i - and several other users as far as i know - do render in italics).

Cheers back, sorry for any inconvenience and thanks for the message --Quite A Character (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * TBH I would prefer to use cite web really, but I've seen it changed so often to cite news in these circumstances that I now 'go with the flow' as it were, although I'm still somewhat ambivalent about it. Editors often think that the name of the work is also the publisher (can be sometimes); for instance The Times is often put into that parameter but the publisher is actually Times Newspapers or in fact News UK which is a subsidiary of News Corp. Also local papers in the UK are very often published not locally by the paper itself but by one or two companies that own them. Usually Newsquest, or Local World. Fun isn't it? Eagleash (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Maus Frères
Hi, I'm not criticising just a little puzzled. Why did you redirect Maus Frères to Manor (department store) when Lacoste is a much better known company that is also owned by them. So if it needs a redirect why not redirect to Lacoste ? Now all the history of Maus Frères has been lost from the wiki. Unibond (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, Thank you fro leaving me a message. As I recall, what I did was 'restore' the page to its pre-existing state. In case you aren't already aware, this is done by clicking on the earlier version of the page in the page history, clicking 'edit' and then saving it. In other words, I restored the version here by . I did not do very much research into the company and Lacoste is barely mentioned in the page. If you think there is a better target for the redirect then you're free to change it but please explain & / or justify the change in your ES. Or perhaps leave a note at the TP (mentioning same in the ES). The topic also needs to be already mentioned in the target page. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I really don't think the page should have been changed into a redirect, Manor is just a subsidiary of Maus Freres as is Lacoste Unibond (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As I say, you are free to edit the page, but if you feel it warrants a standalone article it will need more than 3 references to the company's own sites... one of which appears to be a dead link. Your original edit summary referred to 'multiple articles'. If these exist perhaps they could be used to develop the page? See WP:NORG for notability guidelines... WP:SIGCOV will be required in multiple independent sources. Eagleash (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Luka Milivojević
There's no need to be sorry with that but at least with the usual "updating" edits, the full time whistles are gone. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 16:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that (dynamic) IP always jumps in ASAP. There's also one that updates the CPFC scorers only. So I'll do Wilf now so I don't waste time later... :P Eagleash (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this is not something I know anything about at all but thanks for the offer! Eagleash (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! I notice the page has been moved to mainspace. This might be a little ambitious or premature. Please have a read of WP:NMUSIC for the specific notability guidlines and see if you can improve the page at all. The article is still subject to new page patrol and may be tagged for issues at that stage. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Belgian Class 52 diesel locomotives
Dear, thank you for accepting my sandbox article to draft status. Excuse me if the question is stupid, but what do I do now to get it from "draft" to "regular" article? Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thank you for leaving me a message. I moved the draft from your sandbox to the draftspace as that is the preferred namespace for draft articles. You have already submitted the draft for review (that is how I came across it in userspace). Review can take some time – there are currently about 3,500 articles awaiting review – as reviewers are volunteers like all editors and subject to the same time constraints. All you can do now is wait for it to be reviewed and if possible continue to improve it. I would recommend that the sourcing could be improved; there are no inline citations and this could be an issue when it comes to review. The reviewing editor will ask for improvement if they feel it necessary. Cheers Eagleash (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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