User talk:GloryRoad66/Archive 10

An image of a golden era
A brief back story: many of my friends on FB post rare pictures of 1960s garage rock bands that I have never seen before. One in particular, a concert with the Myddle Class was taken in 1966 when the Velvet Underground opened for them.
 * Hopefully this link works properly; maybe you can decipher what is happening in all that carnage! TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In '66 the Myddle Class were one of the biggest bands in the Mid-Atlantic region--probably the biggest group in New Jersey. The Velvets had not yet released their first album yet, and they were largely unknown outside of the bohemian sections Village and Soho.  One of the members of the Myddle Class married Carole King after she divorced Goffin. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And I think there is a book about the one of the band member's murder. I'll need to search for that though to be certain. The article you wrote on the Myddle Class could have been made into an excellent hook for WP:DYK. Remember that link for any new content or GAs you make in the future. Of course, not all garage rock bands can make it at DYK but if you find an interesting fact (like Larkey marrying Carole King) it would be difficult for any promoter to pass on it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm aware that there's a book, and I'd like to get it and expand the article if possible. I haven't gotten into the DYK thing as much as I could have, though.  I could try doing that a little more.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Garage rock
Hey, sorry, I didn't get much editing done to the article today. I ended up having more rl suff to do than I thought I would. I should have time tomorrow, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That's OK, . I just appreciate all you've been doing--you have been so generous with you time.  Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Indecently,, I'm glad you asked to find the page to Greg Shaw's 1973 Rolling Stone review of Nuggets. Your request prompted me to go to a university library near me, and I found a reprint on microfilm.  I had never actually read the review--only quotes from (and references to) it, but it was a real eye-opener.  The first page of the review was presented in a big full-page layout with pictures of bands and a huge headline reading "Punk Rock: the arrogant underbelly of Sixties pop".  I wasn't previously aware of just how above ground and high-profile all of this this "punk rock" talk had gotten in the early 1970s.  A huge profile in rock's biggest magazine. Pretty amazing.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Damon
Hey, I noticed Turkey recommended you write about some bands/albums in between the GR article. One great artist without an article is a guy named Damon, best known for his album Song of a Gypsy (if you look him up search "Damon Song of a Gypsy"). It received a lot of positive reception when it was reissued and is considered the best privately-pressed psychedelic record of all-time. Please don't take this as me telling you to stop writing on the GR article; I'm not but if you need an interesting figure to write about, he's your guy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I got a little "stressed out" because I was having difficulty getting the Success and airplay section at the GR to look right. I hope that  isn't mad at me for expressing my frustrations--it wasn't directed at him--it was just self-inflicted frustration. I hope that he's not fed up.  He's been really nice to help out with the whole thing.  And, he made a good point that I could take a week or so off from the GR.  I could take a week off and work on the some other things.  I went in yesterday and improved the Success section, so I think I have it where it needs to be--finally.  Next week, I'd like to go in and improve the Regions sections, but I'll work on some other things first.  I have a few GR projects siting in my sandboxes, and the thing you mentioned looks interesting, so I could do a piece on it.  I'll try not to think too much about the GR this week.  But, when I get back to the GR next week, I'll try to alleviate some of your concerns there.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was never "mad" about anything. I've been wanting to do a write-up on how to refocus the article, but it'll take another thorough read-thorugh and some time to think it through.  I see it largely as a forest vs trees thing.  I don't really have as much time to devote to it these days—take a look at how my editing has plummeted in recent months (it's worse than it looks—most of my recent edits have been little fixes rather than content generation).
 * I suggested worked on smaller articles less because of the issues at GR itself, and more from the perspective that it's best to get some FAC experience before bringing in a large article. At FAC, large articles are a chore to review, so people tend to avoid them—and doubly so with new nominators.  If you could bring a couple smaller articles through FAC first, you'd both learn the ropes and earn the trust of the reviewers, who'd them be more likely to give the article a review (you need a minimum of three supports from people who've given the article a thorough prose review).
 * I'm not saying to stay away from GR—keep working away at it, but switch your priorities to something less demanding for the time being. For instance, I've been working away at Harvey Kurtzman and several other articles for years, and have had quite a few FACs promoted in the meantime.  Pick out a couple well-documented smaller topics that have poor WP articles and focus on getting them through first. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I will write some points on the article talk page when I get a chance since you asked on Curly Turkey's talk. I can also go back and tweak some things myself like the importance of the Count Five's "Psychotic Reaction". I disagree to an extent about the need for sections about individual US regions: Garage rock in the US can effectively (and more efficiently) be discussed by analyzing about a dozen essential bands that have noted impacts on the era and their successors (beyond having a "classic" song). One thing that could receive more attention as a result -- a thing that I'm surprised is being overlooked -- is the effect of albums recorded by garage bands like the Blues Magoos (Psychedelic Lollipop) or the 13th Floor Elevators (Psychedelic Sounds). I'm not going to bring up that discussion again though because I know we will just go back to dancing in circles. Thank you for helping GP66 out; your contributions have not gone unnoticed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * and, I fully agree that we can trim the number of bands, but my concern is that if we completely do away with the Regions section and restrict discussion to only a dozen bands, then the article will no longer do justice to its topic and what its very name implies. It will essentially (at least almost) revert to the incompleteness of yesteryear.  Before I started the expansion, the article looked like this:  It mentioned only the a handful of big-hit 60s acts and ignored almost all the rest--it actually said more about post-1980 revival bands than about the original 60s bands, which was a gross oversight (and imbalance).  A good article on garage rock should cast its brightest light on 60s acts (for 1960s garage, we're dealing with what has been memorialized as a golden age--see GracefulSlick's title of the thread above).  Furthermore, back then, the article did not even mention female acts and had almost no mention of international acts (maybe one or two), which is an integral part of the topic.  A garage article should go into the various international aspects as it now does.  Yet, just as the post-revival acts should not outnumber 60s acts, international acts should not outnumber North American--which necessitates a cerain degree of representation.  Quite frankly right now, I think that the Canadian section is too small, but until we get more helpful sources, it won't generate the kind of discussion it needs.  I wish there was a really good book out about Canadian garage, say the way we have about Indian (Bhatia) and Australian (Marks & McIntyre).  Take for instance Greg Shaw, who as probably done more than anyone else (with possible exception of Lester Bangs and Lenny Kaye) to inform the mindset of most people who follow garage.  When I went to the library the other day to look at microfilm of Greg Shaw's original Jan. 1973 Rolling Stone review of Nuggets, a few things struck me:
 * Although he predicts that the album would be monument for the ages and finds a lot to love about it, he also takes it to task on certain points:
 * He notes that Lenny Kaye's original intention was to create a series of eight alums, each of which explored different regions--Electra wanted something more commercial, so they convinced Kaye to reduce it to a one double-LP album.
 * While he praises many of the songs on the album and likes it as a whole, he expresses disappointment that, with so little space available, they chose saccharine numbers like the Cryin' Shames' "Sugar and Spice" and non-garage songs such as "My World Fell Down" by Sagittarius. He likes "Moulty" but notes that it does not properly represent the Barbarians as a band the way "Are You a Boy or Are You a Girl" would have (none of the other group members played in "Moulty").  Quote:
 * Though liner notes, styles, and influences could be traced across the land and a real history of American rock of the Sixties woven together. And there are enough nationally known hits from each area to assure 'commerciality,' if we must maintain the fallacy of that consideration.
 * He makes it clear that more volumes of Nuggets and/or other compilations will be necessary in the future. He says that Nuggets is just the "tip of the iceberg".
 * He contends that there should be a comprehensive collection about lesser-known British acts (what we now call Freakbeat)
 * Certainly, all of these wishes came true in the subsequent installments of Nuggets and Shaw's own Pebbles, as well as the countless other compilations (according to Peter Aaron there are over 1000). But, the point I'm making here is that the garage thing was so huge, that I'm not so sure that we can convey a "real history" of garage rock with just twelve or so acts.
 * And, even the best-known acts haven't had nearly as much written about them as acts in other genres. Furthermore, after Link Wray who actually came before garage), there is not one clearly group of artists that we can solely identify as the groundbreakers of the genre (and as I said, some of the most groundbreaking stuff came from lesser known acts), the way you have in other genres.  For British Invasion, we have the Beatles and the Stones.  For folk rock, we have Dylan and the Byrds.  For post-1975 punk we have the Ramones and the Sex Pistols (though they were far more derivative than most people think).  But, 60s garage?  It is impossible to say who the real movers and shakers were--it all happened collectively amongst thousands of groups.  We have the bigger acts that made hits, but they were not necessarily the primary instigators of the form.
 * In garage, the best known stuff isn't always necessarily the most cutting-edge ground-breaking. If we focus only on the bigger stuff, we will miss a lot of other important aspects--and readers deserve to get a full meal.  In his 1973 Nuggets Rolling Stone review Shaw mentions the song "Voices Green and Purple" by the Bees as an outstanding example of the kind of cutting-edge stuff he'd like to get comped.  I used to have that song mentioned in the article--and I shouldn't have taken it out.  Songs like Evil's "I'm Moving On"  and "From a Curbstone" and "Project Blue" by the Banshees are examples of full-throttle "blood and guts punk" from 1966.  Even if they are not the best-known songs, there are sources that attest to their importance.  So what I've tried to do, when removing mentions of songs and band, at least keep the most striking and ground-breaking of the ones that are lesser known (well, except for "Voices Green and Purple"...).  And, I do have the section at the end of Markesich's book that ranks records according to a balloting by noted experts.  For, instance the song "It's a Cry'in Shame" by the Gentlemen may not be the best-known song, but it was ranked #2 there, right behind the 13th Floor Elevators' "You're Gonna Miss Me" in all time greatest all-time garage records.  It needs to stay.
 * I'm not cherry picking here--there are sources that attest to the importance of songs such as this.
 * I do not think that the GR article has to say everything about everybody, but it does still have a responsibility to teach. In certain cases that entails going a little beyond the obvious and taking the reader into some of the back-alleys.
 * We have a responsibility to do it right.
 * So, I'm trying to balance out Wikipedia norms with the needs of having an in-depth and informative article. In the last several months, I have cut the article in half.  I can certainly cut more, but there is going to come point where to go further will have a damaging effect.  But, we can cut more, and I'm open to suggestions.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * GP66 just so you know, you are responding to my comment, not Curly's.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to put both names. I went back and added your name above. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * See here's why I worry. I can't just take a break from this article without having reason to be concerned about it.  I wish I could just go and do other things.  But, the issues of this article are always pressing and just keep coming back.  Even while I'm writing about other things, I have to constantly worry that the article may get truncated in the name of Wiki purity.  There was that radical split proposal last November?  Look, maybe it may have turned out to be for the best, and it prompted me to make some trims that I know would have to get done, but in its proposed form it would have been a disaster and blown the article to bits.  GracefulSlick, I know that you are well-intentioned in your concerns.  I'll try to accommodate them as best I can, within the framework of not diminishing the article in a harmful way.  But, isn't the twelve bands thing a bit extreme?  I don't have a monopoly on the article, but I have worked super hard to get it where it is.  Please, if I'm going to other projects for a while, can you please give me reasons to have peace?  Rather than saying "only twelve bands", why don't you recommend individual bands, and I can consider removing them. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Ugh...not this again. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND; do not try to make this one with your "peace" remark. You are well aware the GR is not a high-traffic area for many editors -- maybe four users at most have edited it consistently in the past few months. I have not edited it for awhile and have no intention of doing so until a few editors are on board to move it in the right direction. Just do what you enjoy working on outside the GR project. If you believe I am a threat to the integrity of the article and have evidence to support it, report me to the appropriate forum. I honestly do not care.
 * The 12-20 band proposal is actually not far-fetched at all (I'm only referring to the section about regions of American bands) because that estimate is close to the number of artists that are consistently referenced for having major affects on the 1960s movement and the punk music of the 1970s-80s. I can come up with a list and we can see how radical my thoughts really are.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not making battle. There was a point when there was indeed a lot of traffic--you remember that time in November and December(?).  The article has moved steadily towards getting smaller in the last six months--and it is now under 190,000KBs (it used to be 372,000).  So, I think there should be no reason for you think it is going in a bad direction.  No one will be 100% satisfied with everything--I've had to compromise things I wanted.  I am trying to work within a reasonable consensus.  Just make realistic proposals and I'll be attentive to your concerns.  Also keep in mind as I said, the US section has to be proportional in size with the international--it can never be smaller. For every reduction I do in US regions, I have to do a matching cut in International to keep them in balance.  Incidentally there are approx. 46 bands listed in Revivals.  I don't think anyone would advocate that any of them be removed.  But, the 1960s US section should have more than any Later developments section--it was a much larger movement and constitutes the backbone of the genre--the biggest genre ever in rock. Furthermore, there were a lot more people involved with 60s garage than post 1975 punk.  Here's what's in the punk rock article:
 * For the First wave in the US (1975-1976): for New York city alone they mention approx. 12 acts and for elsewhere approx. another twelve (in total that's about 24). Keep in mind that most of the action was in a few centers such as New York (and to a lesser extent Cleveland, and Boston).
 * In the second wave (1977-1978), approx. 52 bands are mentioned nationwide (some that don't even have articles), but punk in the US in the late 70s was tiny compared to 60s garage. Outside of New York, Cleveland, and LA, there was not that much going on--maybe a few bands in most cities 1977-1978.  It was not like 60s garage where everyone was in a band and there were thousands of people cutting records.  I never saw one punk band playing in any neighborhood in New Orleans or its suburbs at that time.  I only know person played in one (not well, but one of my friends was cousins w/ Dee Slut of the Sluts). There were a few bands playing in clubs such as the Normals and the Sluts (circa 1978-1980).  It was very limited in scope here and in most US cities.  In the early 1970s there was a hard rock band that played two houses back from us, but that was whole different thing.  Punk didn't get widespread in the US until the 80s with hardcore--but that was still tiny compared to 60s garage.
 * Right now in the garage rock article, for the US regions section (not including Canada), we list approx. 50 bands--about the same amount as in the second wave 70s punk section (of the punk rock article). But, the 60s garage "second wave" (1964-1968) was much bigger. There were practically 100,000 (conservatively) or more, and out of them over 4000 made records--in regions all over the country--many regions that have since been removed from the article. I never said that we need to put all of the bands in, nor a fraction of them.  I think that what we have now is roughly proportional to what is in similar sections of the punk rock article.  We could remove more, but we have to do it carefully.  But, a 12-20 limit is not realistic.
 * As for the albums issue you brought up--I fully agree. I had put mention of those albums (and others) in the Psych section a while back, but the editor who made the split proposal took a lot of that discussion out. You could have brought up the issue at that point--I was going along then with what I perceived both you and he wanted me to do.  But, thank you for mentioning it now.  I can put some of it back in.  I'll admit that it previously went into too much detail before--so I could make the album mentions more brief now.  I'm not trying to be negative--I'm just saying that there are a lot of issues involved here that keep me occupied, and the twelve-band limit idea was troubling.  For bands, let's discuss them one by one, rather than putting a number on them.  All I meant is that just when I wanted to move onto some other things--here came the proposal to make  radical cuts which may go too far.  It's things like that keep me focused here.  Nothing I've said is meant unkindly--I was just being honest about the way I feel and was not attacking you personally. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not reading this wall of text -- mostly because comparing the GR article to the PR page is not a strong arguement -- but I'll happily work on that list of artists I mentioned so we can discuss it soon. Best of luck.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If you do not wish to listen to evidence presented in logical way, then why have such a strong opinion? I am knowledgeable enough about garage rock to have an opinion you can at least respect, even if you disagree.  I don't necessarily disrespect your opinion, but when you say we should have a 15- 20 band limit and no regions, you are asking for too much (or should I say too little?)--and you are asking me to re-invent the wheel overnight.  It was you who brought up the punk rock article for comparison, so I just thought I'd clarify a few things about that.  The only difference is that 70s punk is much smaller in scope than 60s garage, particularly the US Second Wave--and the Second Wave bands in the punk article are very comparable to 1964-1968 garage bands, proportionally speaking, in that most of them were grass root and small-time compared to the earlier wave of NYC acts who became more famous.  Incidentally, the Hardcore article lists approx 83 US bands (some bans without articles of their own) circa 1979-1984.  HC is definitely comparable in terms of grassroots participation, if much smaller than 60s garage.  The 1979-1984 US section of HC is arranged city by city--the GR region by region, which is a bit less intensive.  I realize that the HC article is not rated, but could eventually be, and the punk rock article is rated--FA.  Rather than a set list, I'd much prefer individual bands that you think should be dropped--with good reasons.  If there are any you want added, tell me--fine.  If there are any that you feel need additional explanation--fine.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I never once compared the punk rock article to the garage rock article in this discussion. Go ahead, re-read my comments. I'm guessing you'll quote this: "close to the number of artists that are consistently referenced for having major affects on the 1960s movement and the punk music of the 1970s-80s". That was when I was speaking about the garage bands that are instrumental to the original 60s movement and their punk successors. I'm not going to press the issue for the reason that working on the GR article with you just is not all that enjoyable compared to what I have been doing. As a reviewer, Curly has displayed more commitment to improving an article than I have ever seen; without a doubt, he has taken some of my points into account and that satisfies some of my concerns. If you need me, I'll be goin' way down where I can be free from this article!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Having no Regions sections and no more than twenty bands would go too far and would put this article in a position where it has less bands mentioned than commensurate sections in articles about smaller movements that are not called "garage rock" (and the sections in those articles are sub-divided into cities, where ours would no longer even have any regional coverage). Keep in mind we also have to balance out the US sections with the international.  However, I will be removing more band mentions and song titles, and actually adding discussion on some of the better-known acts (I'll be making sourced statements about their influence on later genres, etc.), so I think you'll be satisfied in many ways.  Even if you don't agree about every parameter and detail, you can still appreciate some of the changes I am making.  Please be patient.  Things like this have to evolve.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dean Kohler.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Dean Kohler.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The Squires (Pebbles band)?
Do you agree with this page move that was made a few days ago? I have never seen a title named partially for an album the act is featured on. Wouldn't "The Squires (American band)" or at least "The Squires (garage rock band)" be more suitable alternatives?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I noticed that same editor moved "the Squires (Canadian band)" (w/ Neil Young) to "the Squires", which probably was necessary, considering Neil Young's fame, but we could find a more sufficient new name for the Connecticut band. For the Connecticut Squires, it may be best to call them "the Squires (American band)" or "the Squires (Connecticut band)".  "American band" would function well according to the reasons you mentioned in regard to other bands.  But, then the name "Squires" was so ubiquitous--and "American" may not easily enough distinguish the Connecticut band from the Canadian.  However, "American" could suffice.  We should definitely change it to one of those two (rather than "Pebbles band").  Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with "Connecticut band" too. Just not "Pebbles band"; god that looks ridiculous.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Backlog update: Technology update:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
 * Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.
 * Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Page Curation/Suggested improvements
 * The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
 * User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
 * User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:
 * Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Dean Kohler in Vietnam.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Dean Kohler in Vietnam.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * , there are no existing free use images available for this subject. The image presented is over fifty years old and is contextually important to the article.  To delete it would harm the readers' ability to fully comprehend the topic.  I ask that we keep the image there.  It serves the article and its subject well.Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you think (feel?)
about calling The Archies a fictional garage band? Well, that is what wikipedia does. I am unclear about how to proceed, so thought you might at least have an opinion. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , you've asked a really good question. I'm guessing that you're probably thinking the same thing... I suppose that they were a fictional garage band—at least in theory (according to the concept of the TV show), but certainly not in reality as an actual, bona fide garage rock band.  I suppose that since it says "fictional...", it would be OK to say "garage" too.  But, perhaps it would be better to say "fictional rock & roll band" in the lead section, and then put "fictional garage band" somewhere later in the body text—I guess if we tuck it away in the body, readers will not take it in a literalistic way (I'd imagine certain sources have probably called them a fictional garage band).   I know that the Monkees started out as a fictional garage band (on the TV show), but they somehow managed to became a real band.  I guess that when Don Kirshner got frustrated with the strong-willed real-life Monkees, he decided to create a new cartoon fictional garage band that could be more easily manipulated.  I suppose that's the story of bubblegum—the producers figured out that they could create all these fictional garage bands, but water it down and make it more commercial to appeal to little kids who watch Saturday morning cartoons.  I'm loathe to admit this, but the garage rock article should probably add mention of bubblegum in the info box (as a derivative form)—but those IP address editors would go nuts and keep trying to take it out—they hate it when we say anything like "pop" about garage. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we'd best let sleeping dogs lie on this one. My issue was not so much that they are fictional as it was about the music they play.  A Garage Band has a certain attitude or style or something that Sugar Sugar does not.  Mostly I just thought and hoped that you would be amused by this.  Carry on, Carptrash (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I was definitely amused! 05:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
 * has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
 * Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

The Signpost: 6 September 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
 * The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: 
 * On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
 * Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

The Signpost: 25 September 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

GA reviews
I am shuffling things up a bit by reviewing GAs. If you ever have any articles you are waiting on review and I have not substantially contributed to it, you can ask me to help. I should return the favor for your reviews somehow!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I've been away on Wikibreak, but I should get back into more frequent editing at some point. I thank you for that kind thought.  Nonetheless, I would prefer not to have someone I know as well do a review of my work.  I believe that to be the best thing to do for everyone's sake with the best intentions. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
 * Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
 * The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

The Signpost: 23 October 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar
I'm flattered for the offer, but may I ask, what antecedents section did I contribute to exactly? Was this meant for somebody else? Thanks. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 01:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I may have had the section name wrong, but I think you mentioned in the thread, that you had contributed background information on the genre in the article, so I just wanted to show my appreciation. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Um, I'm not quite sure where you got this from. You may have mistaken me for somebody else, as I don't remember contributing to the heavy metal music article. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 01:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I do apologize——I thought you had, But thanks for everything else. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah man, it's cool! Thanks. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 01:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I went back and did a slight re-wording, so I hope that it now looks just right. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for the barnstar! SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 01:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Happy to do it! Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Backlog update: Outreach and Invitations:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
 * Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
 * If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: . Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive
 * A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
 * Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. —  TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) 
 * ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
 * The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Response to edit: Thank you for your response to our (EM's) "Rapture" submission and your explanations as to change. Understood.99.197.186.77 (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

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

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

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


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

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

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

Rollbacker
Hi Garagepunk66. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AGaragepunk66 enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Fences &amp;  Windows  20:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.


 * Thanks so much . I will promise to use the tool with the utmost restraint and only in cases of flagrant vandalism. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

???
Why did you unreview all the articles I patrolled?--Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, I wanted to give editors a chance to expand those articles. Sometimes, if you leave the articles on the carousel for an extra day or so, they might fetch prospective expandors.  For the articles I review (if they are brand new), I usually go back in and uncheck them (as "unreviewed") so that other editors can make additional improvements.  Then, if I see that an article has been in the queue for more than a day or so, I place whatever tags and mark it as reviewed.  Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. That makes sense, I guess I should start doing that.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation
Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for February 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Beatles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Segregation ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/The_Beatles check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/The_Beatles?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 26 April 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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

ACTRIAL:
 * WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

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

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

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

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

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

Not English News Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
 * Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
 * The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

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

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

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

The Signpost: 29 June 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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


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


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

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

The Signpost: 31 July 2018
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

The Signpost: 1 October 2018
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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

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

The Signpost: 28 October 2018
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)