User talk:JSFarman/Archive 3

Help?
Hi! You helped me a while back when my article for Manijeh Razeghi was flagged for deletion. Thank you. I appreciated that! :) Recently I had a different article that I received the notice for deletion after midnight and then the article was gone before I sat down to fix it at 6 am. I am cheesed that I wasn't given the opportunity to fix it before they deleted, but they did give me the article back in draft form. I have edited that and submitted it for review, but the notice says it will take two to three weeks to be reviewed. Is there any way you could review it for me? Best, SJT SJTatsu (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . I was stoked when I came across the Manijeh Razeghi article.  I didn't know about her, and I'm so glad that she is in WP.


 * I just checked out the draft for Motomatic, and it looks like you've done a significant edit for tone. I would still edit it a bit, though, and I think more references may be needed to establish notability. I'll review it as soon as I get some time!  Thanks for the message and for contributing.  Julie JSFarman (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'll continue to work on it.
 * Hi, I just reviewed the article. I intended to just leave comments, but it's not acceptable, and it doesn't make sense to leave it in the review queue.  I left a comment on the decline notice, but you haven't established notability, and it reads like promotion.  You need to write just the facts, specifically about the company;  it can't be a cheer for the company's mission, notable though it may be. If you need help, let me know, but I did a search, and I don't think it's possible to meet notability at this time.  JSFarman (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for looking at it. I am going to continue to work on it inbetween other pages that I want to do. I did find another article about it that might address the notability issue, but I do now understand that the article needs reconstruction, which I will be working on for the next few days. I do appreciate that you took the time to read it closely and google search. Sorry, it took me a while get back to you. Thanks again :) SJTatsu (talk) 22:09, 29 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.

7th Annual Los Angeles Wiknic
It's the 7th Annual Los Angeles Wiknic! Sunday, September 30, 11:00-4:00 PM Pan Pacific Park, 7600 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90036 Hang out. Consume crowd-sourced BBQ! Bask in the glory of late September in Los Angeles (and the glory of our new user group, Wikimedians of Los Angeles). RSVP (and volunteer) here. We hope to see you there! JSFarman (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Join our Facebook group, or follow us on Twitter! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

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)

Nile Rodgers
Hi there, would you please take a look at Nile Rodgers? I fixed some of the issues, but your recent edit added a ton of ref errors and duplicate text in the 1980s section. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Jessicapierce and thank you! I didn't clear the cache when I previewed the article and didn't see all the ref errors - I was horrified when I looked at it on my cell. I think I got most of them but there's still work to be done. I'm trying to rewrite and ref another 30 years.  Thank you, thank you....I hate when that happens.  Julie JSFarman (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've done worse! Let me know if you'd like a fresh set of eyes on it at any point. Cheers, Jessicapierce (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Get ready for November with Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

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)

Request on 17:52:59, 31 October 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Artworkintl
I understand your policy that every factual assertion needs to be verifiable, but I am a little unclear on what Wikipedia editors consider a "factual assertion." I see on entries for other people that their place of birth, education and the like are not substantiated. I could use a little guidance on what parts of this entry or what types of assertions require corroboration. Thank you for your time.

Artworkintl (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Artworkintl.


 * You will find a lot of articles on WP that don't conform to the guidelines or policies. Sometimes it's because they were created ages ago, and sometimes it's just because no one has noticed.  Either way, the existence of one poorly-sourced article doesn't justify the existence of another.  See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.   That said, yes, the assertions of the article need to be verifiable.  For example:  "Beginning his professional life in the business sector, in 1972 Harris co-founded and was Executive Vice President of Red Roof Inns" should be supported, and can be:




 * And so on. There's a lot of content in the article that needs to be verified, from the lead paragraph through the section about his recognition. See WP:VERIFY, and note that Wikipedia content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.  (The refs should be placed next to the assertions they support; you have them in the "further reading" section.)


 * I declined the article based on notability, though -- you need more references via independent, reliable sources in order to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I suspect they exist, but you may have to dig back a while. See WP:NPEOPLE. There are five references used for the current draft, and at least four of them aren't valid.  Wikipedia (not reliable!), his own website and two refs related to exhibits (not independent).  I'm not familiar with ArtSi.


 * Finally, it appears that you may have a conflict of interest.  If so, please read WP:COI.


 * I hope that helps. He has a great story!  Let me know if you need additional guidance.JSFarman (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Hello ,
 * Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
 * Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.


 * If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.


 * We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.


 * With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for help/review
Hi there. I'm reaching out to WikiProject Awards and individual editors for help on the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize article. I believe the content is well beyond "stub" rating, but I may be too close to the article as few besides myself have been editing the content. Any advice, tips or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Litjade (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Litjade (talk) - I just looked at the (fantastic) article and it is definitely not a stub - ! Went to change the classification and was pleased to discover that someone had already upgraded the article to a B.  Sheesh.  (You are *not* too close to the article - it is nowhere near a stub - I suspect the "stub" classification was a mistake.)JSFarman (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Thank you for having a look at the article and sharing your observations here. —Litjade (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello ,

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
 * Reviewer of the Year
 * Thanks are also extended for their work to (15,059 reviews),  (12,760reviews),  (9,001reviews),  (8,440reviews),  (8,092reviews),   (5,306reviews),  (4,153 reviews),  (4,016reviews),  and  (3,615reviews)., , , and  have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only sevenmonths, while , with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top100 reviewers.

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
 * Less good news, and an appeal for some help

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
 * Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minutevideo was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Training video

Merry Christmas!

 * Thank you Chris! Hope to see more of you in 2019. Maybe even in person.  Happy Holidays! Julie