User talk:Extraordinary Writ/Archive 5

Request for comment
Hi - if you have time, would appreciate any comments, thoughts, criticisms you might have for this draft I've been working on. It was inspired partly as a result of our interactions in July ... but also far too frequently recurring conversations at AfD! Feel free to leave a response here or on my talk page. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, – that's very useful. (I remember thinking a while back that we needed something like this: I'm glad you took the very considerable time needed to put it all together!) I think your unitary/federal/devolved classifications are quite accurate; I'll let you know if I find any that I think belong in a different category. The more interesting question is how all of this, particularly with regard to the devolved subnational polities, corresponds to community consensus. Aside from the obvious ones with state legislators in the United States, India, etc., there really haven't been a lot of AfDs applying NPOL at the subnational level, and those that have don't always make sense: for instance, the UAE AfD you cite ended up deleting an article on someone who was pretty obviously exercising legislative and/or executive power in a federal system, NPOL notwithstanding, on rather flimsy grounds (e.g. not elected; UAE insufficiently "democratic"). I think the basic answer is that most people will only afford a certain amount of grace to topics that don't seem to pass the GNG, despite all the talk about ipso facto notability etc. If I were to create a single-sentence stub about each member of the General Fono, each of whom represents about 75 people, I don't think "keep, exercises devolved legislative authority and thus meets the spirit of NPOL" would get me very far at AfD since many of them seem to have no coverage in reliable sources whatsoever, even granting a certain amount of leeway for offline and/or foreign-language sources. I suppose what I'm rather inartfully trying to say is that although NPOL is written broadly enough to cover both the Scottish Parliament and the Island Council (Pitcairn) (both of which serve precisely the same function), in practice the community will interpret it inconsistently enough to ensure that it doesn't stray too far from the GNG, e.g. by keeping the Scots and deleting the Pitcairn Islanders. Just some food for thought. Again, thanks for putting this very helpful guide together: I'm sure I'll be consulting it frequently. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A conversation about this came up on Discord lately -- someone noticed you could write a lot of articles on technically-elected North Korean figures for whom the sourcing certainly doesn't exist that were technically undeletable by NPOL at face value. It reminded me of this old conversation, musing on how a notability guideline written under American political assumptions intersected with the British system. One thing worth considering is that many NPOL subjects are BLPs, and BLP AfDs can and do go in all sorts of directions not quite driven by notability guidelines. I leaned into that on purpose at Articles for deletion/Adolf Uunona; there are valid questions about whether the subject met NPOL, that weren't necessarily settled by the discussion itself, but that ultimately weren't directly related to whether the article should exist. Vaticidalprophet 22:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you know...that proto-NPOL (and the rest of the NBIO criteria) used to apply only to BLPs, while the dead were required to meet the much higher standard of a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field"? (It didn't last very long: after this AfD, it was quickly realized that holding the living to a lower notability standard wasn't such a good idea.) Another aside: the very first version of NBIO/NPOL, which seems to have influenced the modern version quite a bit, was "just made up", apparently with little thought, as yet another front in the infamous fifteen-year-long Daniel C. Boyer war. It's always interesting to see where the guidelines that we now think of as holy writ actually originated – the effort spent interpreting them tends to exceed the time spent developing them by a rather remarkable margin. Anyways, I certainly agree with your point about political BLPs: although that Uunona case was quite a unique one (what other politician wants to be obscure?), it shows that "but it meets the the notability guidelines!" isn't always enough, and for good reason. Always a pleasure to hear from you. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate you taking the time to look over it and for the positive comments. I'm equally mindful of the examples at the, let's say, minor end of the spectrum. Nevertheless, Tokelau is an interesting case since it sits somewhat ambiguously between being a country and a dependent territory; perhaps we should not be surprised that there's nine members of Tokelau's Fono with articles (BTW not to be confused with the American Samoa Fono!). I think members of the Yap State legislature would likely push the present editorship in the direction you describe.  On 's point about DPRK "legislators", I've not given this much thought and would not necessarily make it myself, but I can see an argument to be made that while the Supreme People's Assembly is de jure legislative, it is not de facto and hence according presumed notability would be wrong, whereas I could more easily see presumed notability accorded to members of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea who de facto *exercise* legislative power.  I would possibly see China and Vietnam somewhat similarly, Cuba less so.  Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiley Rutledge
Hi,. I noticed you're substantially rewriting the article for Wiley Rutledge. I wanted to ask if I could add Warner (1950) and/or Birkby (1978) to the 'Further reading' list. The first book, "The Legal and Political Philosophy of Wiley B. Rutledge", is some 300 pages long and was published by Washington University; admittedly, I can't find anything about the author, Margaret Lee Warner. The latter book, "Justice Wiley B. Rutledge and Individual Liberites", is some 500 pages long, published by Princeton University, and was written by Robert H. Birkby, a former political science professor at Vanderbilt University.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  04:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, as a complete aside but a bit of a fun observation: did you notice that every one of Justice Rutledge's names (first, middle, and last) is very close to or the exact name of a notable publisher? Wiley, then Blount (Edward Blount published the wildly influential First Folio of Shakespeare's plays), and finally Rutledge, very close to Routledge.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  05:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message, ! The sources you're referring to seem to be doctoral dissertations – I'm generally hesitant to use those per the guidance at WP:SCHOLARSHIP since they're often akin to primary sources. These two in particular don't seem to "have been cited in the literature" very often at all, so I'd probably want to pass on them. (I'm also agnostic about further reading sections in general: when I was taking Melville Fuller through FAC, I ended up removing it altogether, on the advice of two separate reviewers.) I'm almost finished drafting my Rutledge rewrite in userspace; once I move it into mainspace (hopefully this week – unless I get sidetracked), I'd be glad to hear any feedback. Interesting coïncidence with Rutledge's names: I had noticed the Wiley and Routledge similarities (I get a lot of false positives while searching in Google Books!), but I don't think I'd ever heard of Edward Blount. Oh, and I'd be remiss if I didn't congratulate you for your work on Socrates Nelson: bringing it from stub to FA is quite an accomplishment. Did you notice the article has already been translated into Chinese? Anyways, thanks for stopping by, and a belated Happy New Year to you and yours. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Socrates Nelson started out as something I found by trying out the 'Random article' function, and I originally just wanted to clean up a citation. Then I found a volume number was missing in the other citation, and things rapidly got out-of-hand. You have to thank for that article in the first place, as I highly doubt it would've ever been created without their dedication to improving the project. And yeah, I had noticed the translation; I did my best to leave a crudely machine-translated barnstar on the translator's zh.wikipedia talk page, and it was cool to see it attain GA status shortly thereafter.
 * Upon further digging (i.e. checking WorldCat like I should've done), you appear to be right that they're dissertations, so I agree they shouldn't be in 'Further reading' (though I do think the section should be kept). I've been sitting here for like five minutes trying to figure out how to talk about your Wiley Rutledge expanded and enhanced & Knuckles edition without gushing over it. I looked at the Britannica entry to compare, and while I know they can't allot the same level of dedication to a single article, it's just not even close. It is genuinely incredible how much effort must've gone into it, and seeing articles get this level of TLC is the part of the project that most reminds me of how mind-blowing it is that it even exists in its current form. Props, and a happy belated New Year to you as well.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  07:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Wiley Rutledge
Hello! Your submission of Wiley Rutledge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Naruto love hinata 5 (talk · contributions) 09:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wiley Rutledge
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wiley Rutledge you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheTechnician27 -- TheTechnician27 (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Question from Drogo the Destroyer on User talk:Pahunkat (21:40, 21 January 2022)
Hello,

I recently posted my first article for review and had it denied due to "copyright" issue. I wrote the entire article. The only words that came from elsewhere were pieces used from fan pages that I also run. So those are still my original writings. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you! --Drogo the Destroyer (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Sorry for the trouble: copyright can be a real pain, but for legal reasons we have to be very strict about it. If you own the site, you may find this page explaining how to donate copyrighted material helpful. However, my recommendation would be to start from scratch: even putting the copyright issues aside, it's important that our articles be sourced to reliable sources, such as newspaper articles and books, that aren't connected to the subject of the article. If Mista CP hasn't received coverage from those sorts of sources yet, he may not be eligible for an article, even if he seems like an important musician to his listeners. If he has received coverage from those sorts of sources, you should focus on summarizing what they say, in your own words, from a neutral and balanced point of view. I'd encourage you to read this helpful guide for more information, and let me know if you have any further questions. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Pahunkat Thank you for your response. I will see what I can find and continue looking for other interesting content to to edit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drogo the Destroyer (talk • contribs) 15:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiley Rutledge GA nomination update
Hi again. I've completed all of the GA nomination except for 2(c) and 2(d). This is the longest part of the review since I'll be checking every source to make sure that a) everything you've written is contained in those sources and b) nothing you've said is plagiarism or a violation of copyright policy. I'm going to condense these two into one and review them on a section-by-section basis just so it's easier to keep track of what's going on.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  19:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Great! Feel free to take your time, and let me know if you have trouble accessing any of the sources: they should mostly be available through Google Books and/or the Internet Archive and/or the Wikipedia Library, but I'm glad to help if you run into any problems. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Question from Amrutha Tadepalli (04:23, 28 January 2022)
Hello I want to publish an article about my self, can I do that ? --Amrutha Tadepalli (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Although you can write an article about yourself, it's generally a very bad idea, and I would encourage you to try writing about something else instead. This page, which I'd encourage you to read, explains many of the reasons why: we only have articles about people who are "notable", and even if you are notable you may find it difficult to write neutrally about yourself because you have a conflict of interest. (Additionally, you may find that having an article about yourself does more harm than good, as this page explains.) I see you've already been contributing to other articles: that's great, and we really appreciate it! If you're looking for more things to do, you might find this listing of tasks helpful. I hope this is useful, and please let me know if you have any more questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Wiley Rutledge
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK
I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky to the second February 11 set. I will be sure to remember to move the article to a different prep if we move back to one set a day before then. SL93 (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, : thanks for your diligence. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Question from Thrill.seeker 001 on Training/For educators (18:32, 6 February 2022)
Hello how do create a page --Thrill.seeker 001 (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! You can learn about the process for creating a new article at this link. It's important to make sure that the topic you're writing about has been discussed in detail by independent reliable sources, and don't forget to cite your sources. Creating a new article is one of the hardest things you can do here, so it's generally a good idea to get some experience working on other parts of our encyclopedia first. Feel free to let me know if you have any more questions, or you can ask at the Teahouse, where friendly and experienced volunteers will help you. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Question from Willykww (21:39, 10 February 2022)
hi --Willykww (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia? Did you have any particular questions, or did you just want to say hello? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Aspasia
I've boldly moved over my Aspasia rewrite into mainspace – would be great if you could find some time to give it a look over and point out anything which obviously needs fixing! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, —great work! I've made a few nitpicks, but there's really not too much for me to say. The sourcing is impeccable, and, at least based on what I've seen, you seem to have done a very good job of giving the various scholarly viewpoints due weight. You might want to consider expanding the lead a bit: six sentences is a bit short for an article of this size. If your sources allow it, perhaps another paragraph or two in the "philosophical tradition" section wouldn't hurt? Henry spends thirty-some-odd pages on it, so adding a bit more detail about what Plato, Xenophon, etc. said (and scholarly perspectives on it) might be worthwhile. I'll try to give the article another read-through in the next few days, but that's about all I have for you: your rewrite is very well written and much more coherently organized than the previous version. As I said before, I'm thrilled to see one of my WP:URFA/2020 notices actually bearing fruit for once! Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments! (And thanks for picking up on my typos and mislinks - something always slips through the net...) You are right that Henry goes into a reasonable amount of detail about the various Socratics and their portrayals of Aspasia – I will have a think about what more should be covered there. You are also absolutely correct that the lead is perhaps a little thin – I really struggled to work out what should be said in it! I will let that sit at the back of my mind for a little while and see what my subconscious comes up with! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Fuller article
I don't think we've interacted before, but I just wanted to say congrats on the FA for Fuller, which I've been reading through and have found extremely well done. Kudos to you for the hard work! WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  15:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! I'm glad you enjoyed the article: I learned quite a lot from writing it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, ! The special-occasion requests at DYK and TFA made it much easier than it would have been otherwise, although the timing for the ITN was definitely tricky. I'm glad it all worked out in the end. Thank you for creating the Challenges: they're a great inspiration to write quality content. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't undersell yourself – you've still got to find multiple articles connected by a particular date, and then manage ITN at the right moment. :) I'm glad people are enjoying them: they're fun to come up with. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest. Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
 * The template db-afc-move has been created - this template is similar to db-move when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Question from Twexco34 (21:06, 22 February 2022)
Hello Extraordinary Writ. Nice to see I have a mentor to help me get started here on Wikipedia.

I've recently joined the site and have created a page draft, simply to learn a few of the basics. There's nothing noteworthy on that page. I received an edit from another user that requested a speedy deletion since my page did not comply with the content policies. I've been trying to delete the page, but could not find a way to do this. Is this something only other users can do? Can I not delete my own pages?

I'd be happy to receive some advice from you about this.

Cheers Twexco --Twexco34 (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! You are correct that there's no easy way to delete your own pages directly. I've put in a request for an administrator to delete the page for you: that should be taken care of soon. (If you need to request deletion again in the future, adding the code  to the page will alert an administrator.) Please let me know if you have any more questions as you start editing. You might find the Wikipedia Adventure – a fun and interactive introduction to the basics of contributing to Wikipedia – to be useful. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your response Extraordinary Writ. I appreciate it. Twexco34 (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Sasikala
Thank you for help 2409:4072:6C1E:EC7E:0:0:2C8:7406 (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"The problem here is that the association isn't notable."
A great edit! Brutal, but true. Thanks. Springnuts (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Zack Ryder
Hi, it seems that this talk page still has non-redirecting content, even though it was moved to Talk:Matt Cardona back in January. Is this normal? Thanks. 162 etc. (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a strange one, It's a long story, but here's the short version: the content at Talk:Zack Ryder dates back to an old version of the article (c. 2006–2007) that can be found in the history; that version was later blanked-and-redirected, and a separate article – now at Matt Cardona – was then created at another title. As a result, there's significant history under both titles, and Talk:Zack Ryder contains banners relevant to the oldest version (e.g. a template mentioning this 2007 AfD). I don't think I've come across this situation before (the answer to "is this normal?" is definitely "no"), but I've now redirected Talk:Zack Ryder to Talk:Matt Cardona to ensure that any old links to the talk page will still work. Thanks for letting me know: what an odd situation! Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

RM close at Wikipedia:Template limits
Hiya! I see that you closed the RM for Template limits, but didn't actually move the page (perhaps you forgot to press the button? That happens occasionally for me too). Do you mind moving the page? I'm choosing not to as I consider myself involved. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 02:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi – the page is under full move-protection, so I had to put in a request at the notoriously slow admin-needed section of WP:RM/TR. Hopefully someone will carry out the move shortly. Apologies for the confusion, and thanks for all you do at RM! Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NSUBPOL
Thanks for your comments while I was drafting this; it's now live. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know: I'm sure I'll be using it often! I left a comment on the talk page, and I'll be sure to let you know if any further thoughts come to mind. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Brett Perlmutter
Reposting this comment to your talk page:

Comment @user:Extraordinary Writ, per Stifle's confirmation that this should be speedily reopened and relisted for another week, would you be open to blacking out the close (BD2412's relist is already on the page) so that the original relisting can be fulfilled? To honor concerns voiced by the original creator of the article, I feel that a more experienced user should take this step Ksoze1 (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Further, can I ask that you monitor this discussion over the remainder of its life? The original BLP creator Lobsterroll continues to add long commentary that distracts from a balanced discussion around deletion of this article. I feel that commentary from more users needs to be encouraged and as a more experienced editor, you are more qualified than I am to ensure this happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksoze1 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For procedural reasons, I can't really revert the close on my own; I'd recommend that you either ask Stifle to do it himself or just wait a few days for the deletion review to run its course. I will try to keep an eye on the discussion once it reopens: there's definitely been a lot of monkey business going there, and I agree that some more input from experienced users would be useful. If you don't mind,, could I ask how you found out about this deletion discussion? It might help me to figure out why there have been so many problems with the Perlmutter article. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Brett Perlmutter went to the same high school I did and he's on the "notable alumni" list of our wikipedia page. I came across his profile via that page and was in agreement that he was not notable to have his own article. To address the elephant in the room, I think it's obvious that Lobsteroll is Brett Perlmutter, and if so then this is a vanity page and I don't like it associated with my school. It's embarrassing and doesn't reflect our values. We were not in school at the same time, but I never heard his name mentioned while I was there so it doesn't seem he's notable even in communities he's associated with. Needless to say I was disappointed that this page wasn't deleted, hence my requesting a deletion review. Ksoze1 (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Thanks ExtraordinaryWrit for your contributions and view here! I just want to point out that, I am definitely not Brett Perlmutter... that said I am a very new Wikipedia editor, that made the mistake of voting too many times on the AfD (sorry about that, I learned the hard way!).
 * I also want to note that the original AfD nominator user:SadHaas is no longer on Wikipedia, because he/she was a SPA. My guess is that SadHaas is the same user as Ksoze1 who is pushing adamantly for the deletion of the article. In fact, the last edit of SadHaas (which we can no longer see because the account has been deleted) was the same day that Ksoze1 reactivate his/her account since it was dormant since 2017 [] in order to keep editing the AfD. I am not an expert at these forensics, but this seems evident that they are the same person. Now the nominator of the AfD no longer exists on Wikipedia!
 * Lastly, I think that Ksoze1 revealed that he/she went to the same high school as the subject, shows an inherent lack of neutrality. Contrary to Ksoze1's view of notability, the school itself found the subject notable enough to give him an distinguished alumni award. Lobsteroll (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's been plenty of suspicious activity from both sides of this AfD. While it's possible that one person is operating multiple accounts, it's also possible that two people simply have similar opinions about Perlmutter's notability. The AfD should be closed within the next day or two; hopefully the closer will take the unusual circumstances here into account. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Arash Avin
Hello EW. I hope you're doing well. Please keep an eye on this AfD as it seems like many socks are active and are trying to manipulate the result. Thank you! 2001:8003:7D11:6600:3066:8E06:6BE5:2E7C (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, IP. I agree that there's definitely some monkey business going on there; I've left another comment and will continue to monitor the discussion. Hopefully the closer will take account of the sockpuppetry/canvassing/SPAs and close the AfD accordingly. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Question from Psychopomp3012 (21:48, 13 April 2022)
Namastay,

Could you please tell me how to add a new page regarding any topic...? --Psychopomp3012 (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please click on this link to see an explanation of how to create a new article. It describes the process, as well as some common problems that new editors run into. Creating a new article is one of the hardest things that you can do on Wikipedia, so you might want to try some easier tasks, like the ones described at this link, first. Please let me know if you have any questions! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Question from Jack92108 (18:40, 2 May 2022)
Hello, I was wondering if you could give me some tips on how to make paragraphs sound older or more official cause every time I type one it sounds kinda bad. Any tips?

Thank you, Jack. --Jack92108 (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are a few ideas: don't use contractions (like "don't", "won't", and "isn't"), avoid slang, and read other Wikipedia articles to see examples of our writing style. You might also try visiting the Simple English Wikipedia, which is a version of Wikipedia that's written in a simpler way: perhaps you'd enjoy editing there. Anyways, don't worry too much about the way your writing sounds: as long as the information is good, other editors can help with the details. Feel free to let me know if you have any more questions! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently Special:ListUsers/patroller New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Question from Maruf.naeem (05:39, 31 May 2022)
How can i write a article? --Maruf.naeem (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! You can learn about the process for creating a new article at this link. It's important to make sure that the topic you're writing about has been already been discussed in detail by independent reliable sources, and don't forget to cite your sources. Creating a new article is one of the hardest things you can do here, so it's generally a good idea to get some experience working on other parts of our encyclopedia first. Feel free to let me know if you have any more questions, or you can ask at the Teahouse, where friendly and experienced volunteers will help you. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Archiving notice
Hey! During your moving of Talk:Shakya, you forgot to update the archive location. This is just a reminder - don't worry, I've fixed it. Thanks! Aidan9382 (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for taking care of that (and Talk:Holodomor denial, and any other ones I've forgotten). I'll try to remember to check the archive template in future. It would be nice if there were a bot that could update it automatically—it seems like this is the sort of thing that could be automated without too much difficulty. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Question from Riyachattter (15:13, 15 June 2022)
Hi I am riyachatter. My real name is Aadya and i am from India --Riyachattter (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you have any questions about editing Wikipedia, please feel free to ask. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.
 * Backlog status

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
 * Backlog drive

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
 * TIP – New school articles

There is a new template available,, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
 * Misc

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
 * To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
 * Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Rutledge rv
If you agree that a primary source is appropriate for the quote in Wiley Rutledge then why did you revert? Surely the actual source of the quote with the case citation is more appropriate than a citation that quotes the same citation. No need to run the reader in circles. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * When it's an option, I prefer to cite the secondary source for these sorts of things—that way, it's clear that I'm including material that secondary sources have deemed relevant rather than cherrypicking quotes directly from the primary sources myself (which can raise due weight concerns). I do agree that giving readers access to the original version is useful, though, so I've added Template:Wikisource to link to the text on Wikisource: hopefully that's a reasonable compromise? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand the reasoning, but regardless you cannot do a citation that way. Any time you're extracting something like that from a source it has to be cited as: Primary author, Primary source, p. X. Quoted in: Secondary author, Secondary source, p. Y. The way I did it before was just to not get in the way of the pagination you had going. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Very well; done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)