User talk:HouseBlaster/Archive 1

February 2019
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Street Society, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

An extended welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

HofCTonPT
Thank you so much for your input and suggestions. I rewrote those sentences you didn't like, and even added some new references. Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

GA review
I deeply appreciate your review of History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance and the changes you are making. You do know that you can make me do those right? It's saving me a lot of work, but I'm afraid it's making work for you. :-) Anything you post on that review page that you want changed, just tell me and I will make it so. Otherwise, just keep on as you are, whichever you prefer is fine with me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am 100% ok with doing a small part of the work. I, due to a lack of knowledge of the subject as a whole, have kept myself to mostly edits that (hopefully) most Wikipedians could do. I am determined to further reward your hard work by doing a small part in getting the article all the way to featured status. You are doing so much already, I feel I can do some small part in this!
 * what a wonderful attitude! I am touched by this. Thank you. It is greatly appreciated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your hard work is greatly appreciated! HouseBlaster (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope you got my pings that the copyright violations are backwards violations - someone else copied me - I did not copy them. The templates are posted on the talk page now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh! That would explain it! Sorry for the confusion! HouseBlaster (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing for you to apologize for. It's a good thing it was found and that you told me.  If you hadn't found it, someone else would have and might not have given me the time to see what was going on before just deleting it.  WP takes copy violations seriously and that's what the "patrollers" do when they find them. So actually I owe you a thanx.  Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: Chetsford (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages
Congratulations on your new privilege as pending changes reviewer.

I see you recently accepted a pending change to March 4 that did not include a direct source.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the edit notice on that page, the content guideline and/or the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide.

All new additions to the DOY pages without references are now being either reverted on-sight or in some cases where the patroller is especially motivated, immediately sourced. I've gone ahead and backed this edit out.

All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, it's not required but it sure would be helpful if you didn't accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you and please keep up your good work! Toddst1 (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * My mistake! I did a quick check on the actual article for the person in question, and was able to find a reliable source for his birthday. I will go back and add that, and thank you so much! HouseBlaster (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No biggy. That's a pretty obscure issue. Thanks for your response and hard work! Toddst1 (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

do you mind
Will you stop changing my edits. It’s not a spelling error. Comedienne is the correct term for a female comedian 2A00:23C6:A58C:FC01:A96B:2AAF:DE38:383A (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comedian is gender neutral. Please stop making large scale changes to wikipedia, without first reaching consensus to do so. HouseBlaster (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If they are referred to as an actress surely comedienne would be more proper than comedian 2A00:23C6:A58C:FC01:A96B:2AAF:DE38:383A (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not disagreeing with you, however, you must reach consensus before doing so. HouseBlaster (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn’t it make sense to call a lady a comedienne and an actress. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it 2A00:23C6:A58C:FC01:A96B:2AAF:DE38:383A (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you read WP:CON? There is no point in continuing to discuss this if you have not. HouseBlaster (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I have not 2A00:23C6:A58C:FC01:A96B:2AAF:DE38:383A (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do so. HouseBlaster (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I will when I have time old chap 2A00:23C6:A58C:FC01:A96B:2AAF:DE38:383A (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have time to change all instances of "comedian" to "comedienne" when referring to a female person, I find it hard to believe that you do not have time to read the article on consensus. HouseBlaster (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ll read it soon old chap 2A00:23C6:A58C:FC01:A96B:2AAF:DE38:383A (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Rollback granted
I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AHouseBlaster granted] the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. F ASTILY  02:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! If I may be allowed a pun, you certainly reviewed my application fastily! HouseBlastertalk 03:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have accepted nationalist POV-pushing in Pisco
You seem to have accepted this edit on pisco. Was it a mistake or is there any justification for that? So far I can tell that the soft-protection of the article is not working. Mamayuco (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked the source that was provided, and it stated that
 * Thus, I accepted the edit, as Pisco is clearly made in Chile according to this source. I am unsure how this violates WP:NPOV. HouseBlastertalk 15:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Peruvian nationalists have for 10+ years been around trying to distort or remove references to Chile from the article . That is the reason it has a soft protection, but if more errors are done in accepting biased edits we will need to move on to harder forms of protection. Mamayuco (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What the heck. When I accepted the edit I thought that the part about Chile was being added, not removed. 100% mea culpa, and sorry for any confusion this caused. As for pending changes protection, I would support an "upgrade" to semi-protection, as this does seem to be a frequent occurrence. HouseBlastertalk 04:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What the heck. When I accepted the edit I thought that the part about Chile was being added, not removed. 100% mea culpa, and sorry for any confusion this caused. As for pending changes protection, I would support an "upgrade" to semi-protection, as this does seem to be a frequent occurrence. HouseBlastertalk 04:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Saket Modi
I'm curious why you accepted this edit. This is a known COI and promotional editor (probably Saket himself) and has a history of making statements that are not supported by the given sources and overall manipulation of Wikipedia. Have you carefully verified the edit for these problems? This is exactly why the article is protected and requires edit verification. -- Green  C  15:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As per WP:RPC, "It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting"While I normally check all of these policies, and did so for this edit, I have never checked every edit done by someone previously to check if they are a vandal or not. Simply vandalizing a different article does not make you ineligible to edit a different article constructively (otherwise, we would just ban/block them immediately). It appeared constructive, thus, I accepted it. HouseBlastertalk 15:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Tag?
Im sorry did I use an incorrect tag on my edit of the General Secretary of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party Im new and don't know all the proper tagging procedures.Carter2tired2taco (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! First, normally you would place the on your own talk page. There is not a policy or guideline that states you have to do so, but it is standard procedure. As for your question, are you referring to this edit? If so, that edit is perfectly allowed; you did not make a mistake! In fact, thank you for performing said edit! Once again, welcome to Wikipedia. HouseBlastertalk 22:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I will do to post on my own talk page in the future. I am trying to learn and respect all the customs of this community. Thank you for reviewing my first real edit. I am glad it falls in line with the practices of this community and is a good first step into improving this vital resource. Carter2tired2taco (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:COI
Hello, I have recently received an advertisement for a website known as Downtowndok which uses WP:IAR to circumvent WP:COI and create articles on behalf of companies - for a price. I was able to talk to them and details on some specific articles they have curated: Is there any action I should take from here? HouseBlastertalk 18:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Deep tech
 * Gerard Lyons
 * You could make a report at WP:COIN although it would be hard to track down users. The Gerald Lyons article has some IPs that might be paid editors. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: Germany national football team
Hello. The information about where the match takes place and its stadium as well is usually given into the report (example). We simply don't have to add more sources in those lines.--Island92 (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What report are you referring to? The example you gave was not a Wikipedia article. HouseBlastertalk 14:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This report. Soon it will be updated with the name of both the stadium and venue because both of them have been confirmed here---Island92 (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What if we keep the inline citations until the information is added to said website, at which point they are to be removed? If the report serves as the citation for every venue in the article, we should probably have a citation until the report has the match listed. HouseBlastertalk 15:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary IMO. For example, we know that Liechtenstein vs. Germany will be played in St. Gallen, but the main report for this match has not been updated yet with the venue and stadium respectively. This information is being reported into that list of matches because of being confirmed by Germany Football Federation here.--Island92 (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say that it is necessary simply because there is not any reliable source currently cited in the article that states that fact, but at this point, it is totally your call. You seem to be knowledgable in the specific norms of these articles, and I trust your judgement. HouseBlastertalk 15:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've added this kind of info for years, before as IP, now as a register user.--Island92 (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes at List of Kendriya Vidyalayas
The requirement for inclusion in that list (or, potentially, in any such list about a large grouping) is that the relevant subject have an article on here, and ideally that it meets WP:GNG. Just so you know if you fall on it again. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cushitic peoples
Hello. I am proposing the deletion of the page Cushitic peoples for reasons found on its Talk page. You have contributed to this page in the past year. You may have an opinion on this matter. Pathawi (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Christian XXX
I am curious why you didn't accept the subtle changes that I proposed. He started in gay porn in 2003-2004 and did 11 movies. Since then 4500 scenes NOT in gay porn but in trans and straight porn. So his Wikipedia should more accurately reflect this shouldn't it?
 * I reverted your edits because they did not have a citation to a reliable source. Please feel free to re-add the information with a citation to a reliable source, and welcome to Wikipedia! HouseBlastertalk 02:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

oh sorry! I read this section in his own blog site entry in 2016 - Maybe it had something to do with my short time in gay porn back in 2003-2004. I only did 11 scenes and I did enjoy myself, but I was just not attracted to men and I was attracted to women and trans women. Additionally straight porn really looks down on male performers who have done gay porn in the past.Aidanpryde69 (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello again! Thank you for providing a source, and for working to make Wikipedia a better place with more knowledge. However, the source you provided does not appear to support the edits you have suggested to the article. Sorry for any confusion, and if you are able to find a source that explicitly supports your assertions, please feel free to re-add the information along with the citation! Once again, thank you! HouseBlastertalk 03:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

wait what? it LITERALLY says exactly what I edited. His wikipedia makes it appear that he is still a current gay porn actor, when his own blog site says the opposite. that he only did 11 gay porn scenes in 2003-2004 and since then has worked exclusively in straight and trans porn. Not sure how you missed that when I showed you his blog entry and what he said on the subject. Am I missing something? Aidanpryde69 (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My mistake for not being clear enough - that specific edit was supported by the citation provided, and I will re-add that information along with the relevant citation. However, some of the other edits (for example, changing the number of times he appeared in erotica from 3,000 to 4,000) were not supported by the source. If you have a relevant citation to support that information, once again, please feel free to re-add it! HouseBlastertalk 03:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 20:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Rachel Roy
She was honored by the UN in 2018 and co-wrote two books with her daughter Ava recently. This info is mentioned in the monsters and critics article you helped me with (much appreciated). Is it okay if I add this to her career section? How do I create a ref name so that already provided reference shows up again? Use the writer's surname (James)?

By the way, thanks for the welcome. 2600:1702:2A40:3E40:696B:C553:48A6:E317 (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome for the welcome! As for the information about the UN and the books written with Ava, please be bold and add it! To create a ref name to reuse a citation, there is a full explanation here. The short version is that the first time you use the citation, you write:
 * On subsequent uses of the citation, you write:
 * Thank you for your hard work on Rachel Roy! HouseBlastertalk 20:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your hard work on Rachel Roy! HouseBlastertalk 20:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your hard work on Rachel Roy! HouseBlastertalk 20:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, I boldly added to RR but my edits aren't showing up when I refresh, am I doing something wrong? Do edits on RR need approval? I know she was locked at one point. 2600:1702:2A40:3E40:696B:C553:48A6:E317 (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Edits to Rachel Roy need approval from an admin or pending changes reviewer when performed by an unregistered or very new user. In the past, there were issues with the biography of living persons policy, one of the most serious policies here on Wikipedia. To prevent this, the page is under pending changes protection. Thank you for improving the article! HouseBlastertalk 00:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem, I had been wanting to do so for a while now, but forgot until today. It's been fun. 2600:1702:2A40:3E40:696B:C553:48A6:E317 (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI
You might find this useful. valereee (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I asked because I find motivation very important, both on- and off-wiki. I would much rather get this information in the candidate's own words. That being said, thank you for raising this with me, and if the consensus among editors is that such questions are inappropriate, I will gladly not ask them. HouseBlastertalk 18:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that it's necessarily inappropriate. It's that, as discussed in that essay, irrelevant questions are just not useful for voters, and they tend in general to make life more stressful for the candidate. So irrelevant questions -- that is, those that aren't actually going to be used in deciding whether to support or oppose the candidacy -- can make the questioner look clueless (or even ill-intentioned, though I don't think that's what's happening here.) valereee (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Article Bruno Pinchard
Hello I have left you a message on the first place where you talked to me : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pleoz

Since I could not see any answer of yours there, allow me to open a new section here. I am discovering wikipedia en, though I have been working for french wikipedia for some time now. Would it be possible to tell me what is the procedure after writing my article ? Is it really going to take 3 months or more to be published, or worse removed ?

Thank you very much,

--2A01:CB14:CD1:B100:462:37D9:AE3F:7F70 (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello! I am sorry for the late reply, I have been busy in real life over the past few days. Unfortunately, it really is going to take (at most) 3 months to get the article published. Once you submit a draft for review, a reviewer needs to ensure the article is notable, among other things. The flowchart used by reviewers can be found here. If they pass the article, they will move the article to the mainspace. I am not a reviewer, nor did I read the entire article, but I highly doubt it will be deleted. Does that clear things up? HouseBlastertalk 19:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes thank you. It does clear things up although I am a bit disappointed that it takes so long. It's quite strange I think this process but nevermind. Good luck on your way. --Pleoz (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

You're almost done
Keep up the good work, HB!! Don't let time constraints force you to hurry - take your time, learn the ins and outs, and don't be afraid to ask questions. What I've gleaned from your prior interactions is encouraging.  Atsme 💬 📧 00:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Atsme! This is a long weekend for me, so I should be able to make significant progress in the course and give it the attention it requires. Once again, thank you for training me - I could not have asked for a more thoughtful and encouraging mentor. HouseBlastertalk 00:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You are doing so well, and I'm so proud of you!! And you're nearing completion. Yay!! Great job, HB!!  Atsme  💬 📧 20:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi HouseBlaster. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember: The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. ~Swarm~ {sting} 14:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for  maintenance so  that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

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)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Wait a minute!
How did you revert my edit so quickly? How were you monitoring recent changes even though you did not look at some of my edits? --2601:205:C001:EA0:A16E:3E02:3571:EAB2 (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I use a program called huggle to help patrol edits. It automatically shows edits that it thinks might be vandalism or else disruptive. In this case, I saw that you did not include a citation to a reliable source to support the change you made to the content. Please feel free to re-add the material with a citation to a reliable source. If you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to ask, and welcome to Wikipedia! HouseBlastertalk 19:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Your admin request
✅. PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! I probably should have been more clear—would you be able to do the actual page itself, rather than the talk page? Sorry for the confusion; I definitely should have been specific... HouseBlastertalk 20:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being so polite! I realized my mistake soon after posting. I have self reverted my change of the talk page content model. Unfortunately I get an error message when I try to change the user page as I am not an interface admin. Sorry. PhilKnight (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Whelp, looks like I am taking a trip to the interface admin noticeboard. Thanks for your help, and again, sorry for the confusion! HouseBlastertalk 21:14, 19 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
 * NPP backlog

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) 22:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

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

American Bantam languages
You made some format changes to the American Bantam page. Do you know how to add on the Languages for links to American Bantam pages in other languages? Right now they are all attached to American Austin, which is technically not correct for some of the links, but not a big deal. But most of the language translations should be attached to American Bantam. I couldn't figure out how to move / Split this. See:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q463449#sitelinks-wikipedia Charliep8 (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I happened to see that answered this earlier. Let someone know if you have any additional questions, and happy editing! HouseBlastertalk 00:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should have gotten back to you and let you know the problem had been solved. Thanks for the follow-up. Charliep8 (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Revdel request
Quick question on your revision deletion here: that seems to be pointing to a very different article about a different player. Additionally, "xwhos" is a scraper site that opten copies our content - for example, the page you linked to is a copy of Kok Jing Hong - it copied a later revision of the article that corrected typos in the original. Maybe you meant to link to something else as the original source? Kuru  (talk)  18:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I think what happened here was Kok Jing Hong was copied to Lim Chong King (compare this version of Lim Chong King to the current version of Kok Jing Hong). Then xwhos scraped Kok King Hong, and then I saw a copyvio and requested revdel. I did not mean to link to a different page, and I will keep in mind that xwhos is a scraper site for the future! HouseBlastertalk 21:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes more sense now. No harm. Kuru   (talk)  23:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

yo test
HouseBlastertalk 03:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
Hello ,

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators and, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
 * Backlog status

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.


 * Coordination: and  have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out.  will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.


 * Open letter to the WMF: The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.


 * TIP - Reviewing by subject: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.


 * New reviewers: The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.


 * 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.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyone
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyone, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyone and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyone during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message
Hi ,

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
 * Invitation

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Page Triage
I noticed that three pages which I redirected were all sent to Page Triage. Can you tell me more about this? I assume it's probably because I contested reversions of my edits. What triggers something being sent to PT? Is it a series of drastic edits? Does an editor have to request it? Is it "bad?" Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not "bad" at all! There are three main reasons that a page gets sent to PT. Every new article is sent to PT, and new page reviewers have a button that sends an article back to PT (it is on the left of the screen under the "tools" category on Legacy Vector, the skin I use). Finally, any redirect that is converted into an article automatically sends the page back to PT. Even if the redirect is restored, it will remain in the PT queue until a reviewer marks it as reviewed. I believe that this is what occurred in your case. If you have any other questions, please feel free to let me know! HouseBlastertalk 18:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment
You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you for doing the histmerges, User:DanCherek! HouseBlastertalk 11:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"Made up"
Draft:Republic of Averna is not made up, it is a unregonized micronation. -- Averan Republic (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To be notable on Wikipedia, a topic must have received significant independent coverage in reliable, secondary sources (for example, a detailed in The New York Times). There are only two sources I was able to find on the subject: a page on a public wiki and a Google Doc, neither of which are considered reliable sources. Therefore, the Republic of Averna does not meet our notability guidelines. HouseBlastertalk 23:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Kindergarten
I'm a little concerned that I'm already bludgeoning at that discussion, but FWIW I didn't find your story inappropriate. The reason it probably occurred to you was that you have an extremely vivid memory of having been left waiting in a situation within which you were already stressed. To me, that's a reasonable connection. :) Valereee (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

RfA
Hi. I've supported your RfC but I'm still curious why you think making an official cut-off time seems necessary. I started the first in-depth analysis of RfA at WP:RFA2011 and I've followed it all ever since. Plenty of admins have had a stressful RfA but no one has ventured such a suggestion. I thought for a moment the idea came from your own experience but I've looked, and I can't find a failed or successful RfA under 'HouseBlaster'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello! I want to start by saying thank you for all you have done for RfA, and even more for NPP. Both essential parts of the 'pedia. I have never run for (or considered running for) RfA myself. It actually comes from ScottishFinnishRadish's RfA and his Signpost interview. It would have helped him, and other RfA candidates have agreed. I took a guess that SFR would not want to go anywhere near RfA for the foreseeable future, given what he just went through. I considered talking to him first, but then I realized that I should just start the discussion. HouseBlastertalk 19:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this. I remembered it the wrong way :( I was trying to avoid that. Clover moss  (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Any time! If that was the worst thing you did yesterday, I bet it was a great day. No biggie. HouseBlastertalk 01:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Page review
I hate to be possibly ignorant, but why was my user page reviewed? Just confused and slightly worried. The Shamming Man has appeared. 01:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NPR has a bit more information, but essentially some people go around and "patrol" new articles to ensure they are notable / not copyvios / etc., and tag them for any problems. You can see a flowchart of the process here. Normally patrolling is just for articles in the mainspace, but you can technically do it in any namespace. In other namespaces, "patrolling" a page just means that it is not a speedy deletion candidate. Your userpage is not a speedy deletion candidate, so I marked it as patrolled. Let me know if you have any other questions! HouseBlastertalk 01:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for clarifying that. I thought I did something wrong. The Shamming Man has appeared. 01:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)