User talk:Jake Brockman/Archive 3

Teaching Moment. Wisdom & Learning Requested.
Hi Jake,

My name is Anthony. An altruistic ex-Godaddy employee who has spent the last few years taking care of clients as a "web guy" who can help with just about anything related to their business. I got tired of hearing horror stories about past web-guys from clients I couldn't help as a godaddy-guy.

That said, when a musician friend of my clients reached out to ask for help updating his stuff, I said "yeah I can probably do that" and watched a few videos to figure out the mark-up code & templates that Wikimedia uses internally to actually make the changes he sought for his band, and it's members.

Then I learned (by reading all the resources in your reply) how Wikipedia actually works and I am humbled.

I'm also interested in learning more and helping contribute as a volunteer once I learn enough to be worth the effort to Wikipedia. I don't anticipate you have the bandwidth to under-wing a new apprentice but that would be awesome. I ask instead for a little help and guidance with the few posts that I'm working on for now. *Shrug* Baby steps.

I understand and agree that Marc Brattin doesn't have the right amount of the right kinds of visible references online. I had a conversation with him about it and his response was "That's okay I get it. I'm an old dog, been doing this since I was 15. I'm in my 40s now. Most of the waves I made are not online, they are in videos and magazines predating any solid stand alone things online. Despite that, I am the owner and manager of the signed band, I hold the Nevada-registered LLC papers and everything of that sort. I'm not worried about cramming a world of encyclopedic knowledge into a wiki page for me. Can we Just Bare-bones it to say I exist, and drum for the band Foundry instead of a redirect where the other band members have their own page?"

I told him maybe, because that's not really up to me. But I would have a conversation with you to better understand the limits of what can (more accurately "should") be done about it in the world of Wikipedia's ways.

If you would please share with me, how best can I help his situation? It's not likely the last time I will run into this situation and it seems as good a place as any to begin really learning how best to contribute to things without damaging the integrity of the Encyclopedia or my reputation around it.

Thank you so much, Anthony Kirk Mynerdywebguy (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Anthony, thank you for reaching out. Let me try and respond to the best of my knowledge and according to my interpretation of some of Wikipedia's rules, guidelines and principles. Reading your message, it seems there are three subject areas to look at: 1) conflicts of interest, 2) Notability and 3) Verifiability.
 * 1) The way I understand your message you work for Foundry and/or Brattin or have a close connection to them. This would make your edits on Wikipedia subject to WP:COI and possibly WP:PAID. I encourage you to read those policies carefully. In a nutshell, people with close connections to subject are strongly discouraged from editing Wikipedia directly. Certain mechanisms are in place for conflicted editing. Those are outlined in the linked articles.
 * 2) Notability is a widely discussed topic all over Wikiepdia. Generally, there are two levels to look at a) general notability which is the minimum bar for any subject and notability for musicians which is a specific subset of guidelines for musicians. Broadly speaking, for a subject to be deemed notable for inclusion, there needs to be sufficient coverage in other media that is independent of the subject and reliable. A threshold test I use myself is a simple question: is the stuff I can find sufficient to write and interesting and comprehensive article about the subject in question and does it go beyond what is written about associated subject, ie. the band. For a person, this would include key personal dates, something about early life and education, maybe something about parents and siblings, family and the impact a person has made throughout life. Has the person received awards or is he widely credited for having played a critical part in a team effort. I would not normally look at interviews with the subject as I generally questions their independence - even if published in independent media. A good source would be an essay about a person in e.g. NME (I'm UK centric, of course any US equivalent will be equally good). Things become blurred if a person if very connected to a certain topic, such as a band. If the wide majority of sources or media coverage is about the band and the person is mentioned as part of the band, this does not necessarily make the individual notable. This is equally true for a CEO or founder or a company. If we only know about the person in connection with the company and there is little about personal life, this is likely failing notability. At this point it's important to note that notability is not inherited (see WP:INHERITED. If a band is notable, this does not make its members or individual pieces of music notable. If other band members are notable based on their own merits, others do not necessarily follow. It may even be that those other band members fail notability, too, but no one has raised this yet. Wikipedia is not perfect.
 * 3) Verifiability is somehow related to notability. All claims for notability - besides being independent - must be verifiable. The sources don't necessarily have to be online - they can be in print. They key is that other Wikipedia members should be able to reasonably easily check the claims made. Magazines are often available as scanned copies in archives or have library of congress entries. I personally would normally accept a mention in a book or offline magazine when dealing with people of historical interest, such as - for example - someone who was a student movement leader in the 1960's and who still is alive, but maybe just a private person now. I would be suspicious and certainly questions sources when dealing with people who are deemed to be of current interest and are part of popular media. "Fandom" usually is very strong - especially in music - so that I would expect to see historical offline magazines quoted in current online media if there is a claim for a person being notable.
 * I hope this helps. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:R262 (New York City Subway car) (3)
Hi Jake. Someone has tried to create the R262 (New York City Subway car) page a third time, even though there aren't reliable secondary sources for it yet. Just a heads-up if you want to file for create protection. Transit enthusiasts, especially those in NYC, can be a bit zealous sometimes epicgenius (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for letting me know. I am not surprised. I'll keep an eye on it. Probably AfD the next one. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Carlos Nicholas Fernandes
Hi, I have created a fresh draft of Carlos Nicholas Fernandes, a page that was nominated by you for speedy deletion. You may find the draft here. I have done my best to improve upon all the points listed by you in the AfD, specifically the ones about a promotional tone, and lack of good sources, such as that from Straits Times. I would like your help in improving the article, so that it doesn't get deleted again. Thanks. SerTanmay (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for reaching out. I appreciate your efforts, however as previously nominating editor I would consider myself conflicted. I also, out of principle, do not engage I getting articles over the line I do not believe should be on Wikipedia because of potential inherent commercial interest. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks anyway. SerTanmay (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry
I did not know that. Please tell me how can I create a new page? Bilal190023 (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * not a problem. Please read WP:YFA for some guidance on creating an article for the first time. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Pall Mall Barbers
Article now has ten sources though I would argue that the previous sources (which included The Telegraph) were more than just passing mentions. But I've included GQ Magazine, FSB, and Fashion Bug and I have plenty more sources. Also the coverage is far more significant than most retail chains of comparable size. Might be worth another look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pall_Mall_Barbers Thedavidshow (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * . Seeme we had the same thought. I left a message on your talk page, while you left one on mine. Pls see my comments on your talk page. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 13:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * . Ah! So THAT's how you reply to someone's message!. Thanks again. Thedavidshow (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Response
(sorry, I'm not sure how else I could respond to you other than writing here) Thank you for the fast response. I am, in no way, related to Pall Mall Barbers. The only reason that I wrote the Pall Mall Barbers article was in response to the reviewer nosebagbear suggestion that there was "more than enough" in terms of references to get a Pall Mall Barbers article approved and that it would be far easier than proving notability on its founder. So that's pretty much what I did. I took the time to research how to write such an article, created all new text, and used some of the references from the previous article and a few new ones. I will expand the article soon and include even more references. Thank you for your time.

Thedavidshow (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Beer Me Now
Hi Jake,

I see that you declined my Beer Me Now page today.

Thats a shame. Can you tell me what I need to do to improve it as I thought it met the criteria?

Thanks Evan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.98.16 (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Evan, Thanks for reaching out. The main reason why I declined the submission was for lack of notability as presented in independent sources. I used WP:NCORP as guideline, which states that for an article about a company to be considered notable, it requires significant coverage, in multiple, independent, reliable sources. As such, the company's website may show the company exists, but that's not sufficient (see WP:NOTDIR). Local media coverage may support the existence, but this would not normally be considered "significant". If there is more coverage, ideally in national media, it will be worth adding for reviewers can reconsider. Please note, that this should be editorial coverage. Routine corporate reporting is also discounted (e.g. details about funding rounds, new hires, new products, PR.) pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Open Destinations
Hi Jake, thanks for your review! Btw any idea why Abercrombie & Kent which I created recently got deleted? The user who deleted it says "Unambiguous advertising or promotion: see WP:YFA, WP:Paid WP:RS, notability guidelines". Idk what that means because the article was written in NPOV and I'm not a paid editor for Christ's sake!! And yes I'll work on improving the article as a draft. Monumentel (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks for reaching out. When I reviewed the Open Destinations article I did only have a very brief look at the A&K article so I am not the best person comment. I do not remember it specifically. Please reach out to the deleting admin , who I have just pinged. It may be good to know if you are in any way connected with Open Destinations, a PR firm or an event manager related to them. This may be unpaid. There is a big trade show coming up in London and it is not unusual for companies to clean up their Wikipedia articles in time for something like this. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Holy moly I didn't know there was a big trade show coming up. Anyways I'll stop editing travel related articles. I'll continue the work on open destinations as I put a lot of effort into it. Might as well finish the job Monumentel (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Request on 10:24:20, 4 February 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Australianfilms
Hi Jake, User:RHaworth deleted a page I spent hours creating for an upcoming Australian movie Danger Close: The Battle of Long Tan after you flagged it for a copyright issue in just one small section of text. It was deleted AFTER I followed all the instructions to fix it shortly after I received your warning notification. As per those instructions, I placed a message not to delete it along with a reason that I was removing the problematic Premise text and replacing it with entirely new and original text. I had already replaced the problematic Premise section with entirely original new text BEFORE the entire page was deleted by RHaworth. I had already corrected the issue and followed the stated procedures as soon as it was brought to my attention. How can I recover the work that I did and/or have the last completely corrected and updated version reinstated? Thanks in advance, User:Australianfilms 10:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC) Australianfilms (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out. When an article contains considerable amounts of copyrighted material it is often best to recreate it. There is of course the possibility to reinstate deleted articles, however this is rarely done for new articles. An admin would then have to go back and do what is called "revision deletion" to surgically erase all traces of the copyrighted material. Before recreating, please check WP:NFILM which talks more about notability for films. Just the fact that a film has been released does not necessarily make it notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please check if the main criteria are fulfilled and they can be substantiated with independent and reliable sources. Please also check WP:ISU, which is part of the username policy. Your username implies it may be shared or part of an organisation. If it is, WP:COI may also be worth considering. If you have any questions pls let me know. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 13:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Rohit Shelatkar
Regarding undeletion of Rohit_Shelatkar Now there are some more coverage about the subject. Google news shows many credible recent links. Some of useful links I found are. This person belongs from India is a public figure who is producing a film starring famous actors of Bollywood. References can be verified on the various reputed and credible news sources. —Shaddycrook (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q=rohit+Shelatkar&num=100&source=lnms&tbm=nws https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/panipat-producer-rohit-shelatkar-on-upcoming-film-weve-never-heard-of-a-story-of-such-bravery-magnitude-4484189.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaddycrook (talk • contribs) 11:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out. I believe another reviewer has just declined the submission. Please check the notes he left for guidance. I agree that there is a lack of "significant" coverage as is required by notability guidelines. Regards, pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Pall Mall Barbers Royal Visit
Added a number of sources... including People Magazine and the Daily Mail... which write DIRECTLY about Pall Mall Barbers and its membership with the Lions Barber Collective. I was having my coffee this morning and spit it all out when I noticed that Prince William visited their Paddington location and spoke directly with the owner of the chain and held a press conference there. If this doesn't make the subject of my article notable... then there's simple no such thing. There's no way that Jamba Juice has ever had a visit by British royalty... So I have no idea what THEY must've done to pass the notability guideline... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pall_Mall_Barbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pall_Mall_Barbers#Royal_Visit Thedavidshow (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for reaching out. I see you have resubmitted this to AfC. I will leave it to another reviewer to pick up and provide an opinion on. Despite your representation I am of the opinion that there are commercial interests at play and I shall not support the article. Also pinging . pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * thanks for responding once more. Again: I originally just wanted to do an article on the founder of the shop, and purely for the experience of writing an article on a living person which I'd never done before, and it was suggested by a Wikipedia editor that I instead do an article on the shop itself. So that's what I did. If the same guy had told me there was no hope of the article being approved, I probably would've just kept editing it for a while just to have the experience of getting to a point where I was happy with it, hen I would've been fine to delete it or leave it until the six months expired. As such I took his advice and did the best I could with this article. Thanks for your time and I'll wait for another reviewer.

Thedavidshow (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Sharmeena Begum article move
Hi Jake, I'd appreciate it if you could reopen my move request & move the article. Here is an article in The Guardian, yesterday, about Shamima Begum who is currently in the news.

You can see in the second paragraph of the article that Shamima Begum left the UK in February 2015 with two others. In the final four paragraphs of the article - if you search 'Sharmeena' - it's made clear that Shamima is a separate person to Sharmeena, who left the UK earlier: "Shamima Begum, Kadiza Sultana and Amira Abase followed their school friend Sharmeena Begum in travelling to Syria to join Isis in the half-term break of February 2015."

The content of the page currently is clearly about Sharmeena: the first sentence specifies that she left the UK in December 2014; there is a reference in the introduction to Shamima Begum leaving later, making clear that this is a separate person. The detailed content of the article also explains that the mother of the article subject died in January 2014. Here is an article about Sharmeena Begum which shows that it's her mother who died at that time. And here is a news article from today clearly making reference to Shamima Begum's mother as the recipient of a letter from the government.

There is also a separate article, about three schoolgirls including the Shamima Begum who is currently in the news: Amira Abase, Shamima Begum and Kadiza Sultana.

Sorry for not providing this evidence in my original move request. The page is now at Shamima Begum but I think all of this justifies moving it to Sharmeena Begum. And Shamima Begum should then redirect to Amira Abase, Shamima Begum and Kadiza Sultana. (Given the major new developments in the last week, Shamima probably warrants a full article now rather than this joint one, but that is a separate issue.) Thanks! 2A02:C7D:5E53:2500:F00E:CE51:5723:F363 (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it. I'm already in a separate discussion with an Admin to untangle this. All rather confusing. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 21:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Turkophilia
Hello Jake, as you are the one who reviews Draft:Turkophilia I'm letting you know that I've added further academic sources. In my opinion they are sufficient to admit the draft into a proper article now. There are numerous articles on Wiki with much less sources. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for help on corporate death penalty
Jake Thank you for the extremely rapid review - it said there were thousands in front of me and could take months. I will work to merge the new information in my draft to Judicial dissolution. Would you be able to make a redirect from corporate death penalty to "Judicial dissolution"?

Thanks - Lordmild (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * . No problem. I sometimes pick new articles from the start, middle and end... I had put a redirect in place after the review. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 11:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Fuk
Fuk yooou.....all of the time delet.... Arman Aryamehr (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No need to be uncivil. I am always happy to help editors improve their articles and give feedback on how to get an article over the line. Please check WP:VERIFY and WP:GNG. Right now, both articles you recently created do not meet any of the minimum standards. Also WP:BLP is of concern, as those "criminal charges" do not appear to be sourced anywhere. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Changi East Depot
Hi Jake, I do understand that Changi East Depot may subjected to WP:TOOSOON and the main reference source is from LTA unless you want other references from the news media such as Channel NewsAsia, The Straits Times, TODAYOnline and etc as the news media have similar source from the LTA. --Gemsdare (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * . GNG seeks significant coverage in independent media. So if the Depot is covered in a meaningful way (and not just as a side note or list item in coverage about the line extension) in independent media such as the ones you gave as example, it should pass. I'd normally discount re-publishing of primary sources (e.g. PR or government publications being retold without editorial context). pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 20:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Emerald Insight
Hello,

Do you have access to Emerald Insight?

I noticed that you are listed as having access to Emerald Group Publishing.

If so, perhaps you would be able to help me.

I seek this source, to improve the Svedka article.

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/case.darden.2016.000009

I've emailed the authors and posted to the Resources Exchange board multiple times to no avail.

Thanks,

Benjamin (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for reaching out. This article is part of Emerald's "case studies" section, which is different to general access. I have no access to this publication, unfortunately. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That's unfortunate. Thanks for the reply. Do you have any idea who might have access? Benjamin (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17


Hello ,


 * News
 * The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.


 * Discussions of interest
 * Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
 * db-blankdraft was merged into G13 (Discussion)
 * A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
 * There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.


 * Reminders
 * NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD  because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.


 * NPP Tools Report
 * Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
 * copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
 * The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828 Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review. Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Jake Brockman, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AJake_Brockman added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 14:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Coupled substitution
Why did you move my sandbox page over to an article? Coupled substitution It was My draft and it is certainly not ready for publishing. Can you please explain why you would do this? This must be a mistake--Akrasia25 (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I see why you did this. I used the wrong syntax to make it a user page. I am taking it back out to my sandbox now and asking for a deletion of the page that you inadvertently created. Just suggesting that you could have guessed that I did not mean for that page to be a real page with that type of title. --Akrasia25 (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's back in user space. Could easily have been an article. Check your facts before accusing other editors. I did not create the article. You created it with defective title. It certainly needed a fix, one way or another. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 16:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Apple Card

Editor8778 (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC) 

Sorry
I was in Spanish wikipedia creating the category and I switched to english wikipedia to see the articles I was going to include and I created accidentally the category here. I am sorry. --Jakeukalane (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, I thought this would be the case - some accidental posting. No harm done! pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

MakeYouKnowLove
Hello Jake. You recently deleted my page for the band MakeYouKnowLove as well as flagged the image I used as in violation of copyright. I have permission to upload the image to wiki commons so I was wondering what steps I could take to unflag that image. Also, MakeYouKnowLove is cited many times on credited wiki pages (Zayn and his discography) and have a number of press stories written about them, yet you said that citations were insufficient. I was wondering what adjustments I could make to the article to make it acceptable for wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeline.doyle (talk • contribs) 10:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out. If Wikimedia has received a certification that you own the copyright then an admin will review this and delete the copyvio tag I left on the images. There is no action to be taken for now. An admin will decide after reviewing and remove the flag, if appropriate. This should happen during the course of the day.
 * As far as the article is concerned, the sources that have been added are, in my opinions, not reliable. As fas as I can see, they are mostly blogs, promo article or advertorials. Please consult WP:RS for what constitute reliable sources and WP:NBAND for criteria for notability. External articles call them "up-and-coming" and "set to shake up 2019" which is usually an indication that notability has not been achieved yet. Have they been signed up by a major label?
 * I am curious - if you have uploaded some kind of copyright release to Wikimedia, this indicates you might be closely related to the band. Please consult WP:COI and WP:PAID if this is the case.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

False Accusations
Hello. In the interest of being amicable yet straightforward, I recommend you being more cognizant of accusations you throw out to other editors. Your COI assessment of myself is based on flawed information obviously conducted without a robust background review. A lot of us do want to contribute information to pages we have an affinity for and/or association with, but that does not necessarily imply a malevolent COI as you have suggested in my situation. If an editor is associated with a page, yet follows all associated guidelines and policies in order to ensure neutrality and accuracy, I think that should be commended. Throwing out accusations will not get you anywhere and will frankly make you appear malicious. Moving forward, I hope you will justify any bold claims you make against other individuals, and remove the COI tag against me on the U of Calgary page once you have reviewed my edits and seen that nothing I have written violates NPOV. Shahroze (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for reaching out. I appreciate that editors may have their specific areas of interest and focus their editing on those areas. This can be specific articles or more broadly a number of articles on specific topics. That is totally fine and probably quite common. Regardless if someone makes edits on only a few articles or on on many articles, editors should be mindful of balance in those articles and in related articles. I see you have been editing the article about University of Calgary since 2006. According to xtools the vast majority of your edits are on that article. You have added 34,112 bytes and removed 4,495 bytes in 259 edits. With 40% of edits on that page, you are the main editor . In our conversation about TEC Edmonton, you have declared that you are or have been a student at that university. Conflicts of interest can have may forms. They may be subconscious or be intentional. COI is different to paid editing, which is for reward and I have no reason to believe you are rewarded. However, in the same way as WP guidelines discourage writing about oneself, one's place of work or competitors, this includes any other connected topics. Those guidelines are in place to manage subconscious bias. Given your disclosure and the magnitude of your involvement, I believe the tag is correctly in place.
 * Let me give an example of such potential subconscious bias. For example, the edit description of the "huge" west campus development clearly indicates awe of some form - aside of that the edit was problematic as copyright violation and had to be redacted. Editing while not logged in to remove COI templated is also indicative. WP:SOCK may also be referred to in this regard. One might get the impression that this "Boost" removal of rankings by led to removing similar such information from other universities' articles. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 21:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to review the article for bias. I'm done arguing about this with you. Also, my logic suggests that if WP:BOOST could apply to one article I think its only fair it applies to the rest, or none at all. The U of C is not only university that I'm associated with, and I have removed WP:BOOST violating information from some of those as well. However, as the article for the U of C was quite empty several years ago I took it upon myself to add information and keep it up to date. Maybe contributors should be appreciated more instead of demonized, just a thought. Shahroze (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Afd
Dear Jake! Please bring Sofia Philosophical Review and Alexander Gungov to AFD. I think both are notable. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what AfD is for. I moved it to draft exactly because of that. They could be notable, but the sources just do not show that. Hence Draft is the right place so that the article can be worked on and correct sources identified to verifiably show notability. The Sofia Philosophical Review article will need independent sources that talk about the journal. Similarly, we need better sources about Gungov. His number of citations seems too low to pass PROF, so will need other coverage for GNG. AfD does not fix content issues. In Draft this can be done.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sofia Philosophical Review is notable because it is indexed in reliable bibliographic databases and it is mentioned in the sources.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but the sources don't show that. The first one is primary and the second one is essentially self-published "PR". The article needs sources which support that SPR is widely cited. Pinging for his expertise. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Jake! I provided reference for two of the databases. Can you please bring it back to main space? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest to submit the article for review using the standard AfC process, if not already done so. Another editor will then review the article and move to article space is appropriate.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 17:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of 1994 Lake Constance Cessna 425 crash for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1994 Lake Constance Cessna 425 crash 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/1994 Lake Constance Cessna 425 crash 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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18


Hello ,

, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
 * Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
 * Reliable Sources for NPP

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
 * Backlog drive coming soon


 * News
 * Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.


 * Discussions of interest
 * A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
 * There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
 * What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Four Square cigarettes
Hi Jake,

Greetings,

I have come to know that my Four square cigarette page has been deleted on your suggestion. I would like to tell you that I haven't copied content and I own complete rights of the quora content which is the same as here. Rest I would assure you that content will not promote.

Thanks Tarun
 * Hi, many tanks for reaching out. If you hold the copyright, as you state, you are most likely an employee of the cigarette manufacturer or work on their behalf. This constitutes paid editing, which MUST be disclosed according to Wikipedia's terms. Please read the policy carefully and make necessary disclosures. You are, however, strongly discouraged from editing any articles about subjects you have a conflict of interest about. It is never acceptable to publish copyrighted material - this is especially true if this originates from a source you are closely related to. Please note that there are other concerns about the subject which also need to be addressed, such as notability and a lack of independent sources. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jake,

Hope you are doing great,

I have recently changed the content of Four Square cigarette and it is 100% unique in nature now. Also i have cited one of the best news media houses for supporting my content. I would really request you to please help me in keeping this content on Wikipedia. Im a budding Wikipedia editor and would want to create my first article on Four Square or any other cigarette brand as im an avid smoker. Please guide me. I have no COI in this article.

Thanks Tarun

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019


Hello ,

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important. Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR. The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever. NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so  you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations. Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for  the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging. Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway. School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * QUALITY of REVIEWING
 * Backlog
 * Move to draft
 * Notifying users
 * PERM
 * Other news

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Moving to draft
Hi Jake, should Gautam kumawat be moved to draft? 大诺史 (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's one option that I would normally recommend if there is a good chance the article can be improved. I have briefly scanned the sources and there does not seem much more out there (at least that I can find in English language sources). I have raised the AfD. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you. Could you raise a deletion request for the file used as on commons if the said article is deleted? 大诺史 (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, will do! pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Help with an SPI please
Hi Jake, I saw you started one of the more recent SPIs against User:Markdabeast1. He's at it again at this profile User_talk:Elizabethg507, which is also promoting another "social media personality." I don't have a lot of experience opening SPIs, especially against users who already have them, would you be willing to help? Thanks! JamesG5 (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Paid contribution
Elizabethg507 (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Economists for Free Trade: needs additional citations for verification - please explain
I guess you are trying to do something meaningful, re Economists for Free Trade and Vote Leave. I see the point of the WP:OR policy itself, even though I think this is an edge case, and in the policy statement itself there's no actual mention of a google search - further, in this case, a google search proves the point better than the new link and is future-proof, because archived. Next one, the other edit: "needs additional citations for verification" needs some elaboration, I think. There are links, including, as you highlighted, news articles. I don't see the point of your template message. I'd appreciate an explanation. Thank you! --Ben T/C 12:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for reaching out. This is primarily about two considerations: is the aspect encyclopaedic, does it add value in an encyclopaedia and if so is the contents reliably sourced. I personally do not think that the factoid about phone numbers adds anything. The link is documented. But that's just personal preference and would not necessarily prompt me to edit the article. The stronger prompt is the unreliable sourcing. Powerbase is a user edited media and inherently not considered reliable. I would argue that whatever google crawls (and what you have shown is not much more than a crawling result in the first instance) is just a grab of other primary sources where we don't necessarily know how this came about. I'm referencing WP:Verify and WP:OR. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As for the google search result - the google search in question shows both the leave vote contact phone number and the economists for free trade phone number. That's what it crawled. Both are primary sources. The two sources were written (presumably, at least if we exclude possible hacker attacks), by the two organisations, respectively. It's hard to find anything more reliable about the contacts, I would think. I am still struggling to make sense out of your explanation, help would be appreciated. If you want to discuss powerbase or user-edited media, such as wikipedia, let's go. Powerbase did a google search, but don't reference their google search. I'd personally prefer the google search, but you seem to think this qualifies as OR - even though it's not referenced in the policy. The whole point of the phone number is that is underscores the close ties between Vote Leave and Economists for Free Trade. As for the verify template - so what exactly do you think has to be referenced? Thanks again for the clarification! --Ben T/C 13:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It may sound weird, but Wikipedia would not accept Wikipedia as source. Powerbase is not an accepted source. Wikpiedia editors are not truth finders or here to "underscore" political points. With regards to the tag, the sources that have been added are either blogs or primary. The article will need additional reliable, secondary sources that clearly stipulate the groups governance, its goals and how it differs from other groups. I have added a reference from the Economist. The article needs more long this line. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 13:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You duplicated a reference within the same sentence. To be clear: the reference was there and you put it again. You might want to review your edit. Wikipedia articles are not there to score or underscore (not sure why you quote that) political points. But it is quite important to make clear who the people are, as you say yourself. I concede that this borders on a journalistic endeavor if mixed with OR. I don't think you made your point about OR, though - you seem to avoid the point about google searches. Both governance and goals are referenced. If you have more concrete examples, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I'd ask you to remove the tag. Thank you. --Ben T/C 13:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is largely primarily or weakly sourced, so my concerns that more sources are needed remains. About OR, it's all in the first sentence of the policy: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. I have not seen any reliable editorial sources (yet) that explicitly discuss how the numbers are the same. By creating the link you introduce a synthesis. That's OR. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 14:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining and for improving your edit of the article. I think your general point about sourcing makes sense, even though the interpretation (re synthesis) sounds a bit strict given that the synthesis is limited to a wayback archived search page with a number listed several times. However, more generally, I've seen WP:PRIMARY, and I am happy to include or for other people to link to more news articles about them, or either in favour (such as in the telegraph today) or against (ft, the economist, more LSE) their conclusions. Thanks again for explaining. --Ben T/C 14:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Op47 wishes to talk to you
.

Bank De-risking
Most Excellent Jake,

However, someone has already deleted it.. #HalmarkWikipedia

Can you re-activate it..? I don't know enough about Wikipedia to fight such people.

I just had to go out to dinner, so I didn't get a chance to add the citations before everything evaporated. It's very easy to Google that content for a highly citation rich environment.

I think Wikipedia should have a 1 week moratorium, where crazy admins cannot delete, and can simply put an "unverified" yellow border around the page, stating "this page is still in it's infancy, content should not be relied upon until more editors have added content and propped citations".

Until then... Wikipedia is part of the problem.

Anyway, if you can assist in the restoration of the page, based on your kind comments, that would be great.

Very best... Capital W
 * , it hasn't been deleted. I renamed it to be more succinct and moved to Draft as it needs more work, especially to add more "meat" about the background why banks feel they need to "de-risk". There's a bit of an imbalance IMO. The article is at Draft:Bank de-risking. I'll probably have some time over the weekend to look at this in more detail. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

✓✓✓✓ Awesome, Jake, thanks a million!
 * I had a look around and improved the lead and background section. For "criticism", I didn't really find that many good sources, especially how this all links with Open Banking and the FinTech angle. I haven't spent that much time looking, though, and there may be more out there. I'll look some more. If you have any sources, it would be good if you could share. Once the criticism section has better sources it should be ok to be moved to article space, though it will need more work. Thanks. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

'''✓✓✓✓ You're a star. I am probably the global resource on this, so let me get to work later in the week on this. Can't wait to see what you've done. Thank you.'''
 * some good sources, though they are a little "primary". Secondary reporting, e.g. in the media would be good to add. This email chain at the end is not really suitable as citation, so the entire point will need better sourcing. I'm also unsure how Open Banking fits it. None of the sources actually state that there is any connection between OB and de-risking. Unless a source clearly states that there is a connection, this paragraph should be removed.
 * In broader terms, many of the sources describe the negative effects of de-risking without really pointing out to any "controversy". They sort of describe the side effects, but I don't see any controversy as in a NGO critizising banks and a bank responding to the critizism. There is a bit of a bias in this section I feel. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Krupp, a convicted criminal against humanity
Dear Jake Brockman, You propose that 'Krupp was initially convicted at a war crimes trial, however he was pardoned, which in the legal context supersedes the conviction.' However, you do not cite any document or legal source that he was acquitted or exonerated of any of his crimes against humanity. Pardoning does not do it. Let me quote an authority on this case, namely, Krupp Tribunal Judge William J. Wilkins, who in 1981, wrote: 'I believed then and I believe now that political expediency dictated [t]his decision [of pardoning Alfried Krupp in 1951]. The Russian blockade and Berlin air lift had been on. East Germany was in Communist hands. Czechoslovakia had been overrun. And the wall was being built in Berlin.' Hence, I would propose that your removals of my referenced edits and additions are arbitrary.

Sincerely

Hyrdlak (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak

Bitcoinz page moved to draft
Hello Jake Brockman, unfortunately there is no any references on wiki with BitcoinZ, what i have to do in that situation? i’m afraid to add more information like external links, cause previously BitcoinZ “banned” on wiki for external links. Only what i forgot to add is link to official page. Thanks.
 * It seems the links in the previous version of the article did not sufficiently support claims. All articles need to be sourced, so that a) statements made can be verified and b) notability can be established. Pls review WP:VERIFY which gives more backround and also gives some guidance about what reliable sources are. If there are not reliable sources, the article may not be suitable for Wikipedia. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 21:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It’s small project, now there no any review in wikipedia trusted sources. BitcoinZ only has Official forum where community are discuses/voting, and official web page, thats all since now. Naturally BitcoinZ has reviews on web. Can you give me some advices how correctly write this article? Thanks

Krupp, a convicted criminal against humanity 2
Dear Jake Brockman,

I understand that other Wikipedia editors consider A Krupp's being 'a competitor in Olympic yacht races' of more import than the fact of him being a convicted criminal against humanity. So flagging up this fact is considered to be an unnecessary 'negativity,' while tens of thousands of people killed by A Krupp's decisions are a mere 'POV' ('point of view'). Perhaps, refer to Holocaust denial.

I am not going to get involved in a carousel of reverting such denialist edits. I do not believe that being rich, or having passed a corporation worth billions to one's descendants in any way absolves a genocidaire.

Obviously, you may disagree. Hence, in the case of Hitler it should be flagged up that he was an amateur painter, and that through the development of weapon production in the 1930s he successfully liquidated unemployment. By the same yardstick, in a Wikipedia article on Stalin, first it should be said that he was a promising poet in his youth, while his decisive role in the industrialization of the SU should be flagged up. On the other hand, genocides and ethnic cleansings perpetrated by these two 'gentlemen,' as 'mere negativities,' must be pushed to further sections, or at best concealed in footnotes.

This is a curious kind of objectivity, to say the least.

Sincerely Hyrdlak (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak

Micky Barnea
Hello Jake. Please look at the changes from this to this and also from this to this

SCHMIDTSCHE SCHACK
Dear Jake, I have seen your comment which is a bit confusing to me. The german article has exactly the same online reference. You mentioned "inline" references to be included. Could you kindly be more specific what kind references really are missing? Thanks you! 34266Nieste (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this new article. Allow me to elaborate a bit more and start with a general point: translating articles from one language to another can be a fairly complex task that goes beyond the mere translation of words. The language projects of Wikipedia (e.g. German and English) are individual ecosystems, each with their own set of rules, guidelines and standards. An article that may exist in German Wikipedia may not meet formal or notability guidelines on English Wikipedia, so it is important to familiarise yourself initially with general notability and in this case specific notability for firms.
 * Verifiability is a cornerstone of English Wikipedia's policies. In a nutshell, any statement that is made in an article should be easily verifiable by other readers, using reliable sources. When writing about companies, those sources are ideally "secondary", i.e. unrelated to the company and not related to a company's PR.
 * EN Wikipedia strongly encourages so called inline references. So instead of just adding the relevant sources to the end of the article, each section of text should have a citation to help readers understand where this information comes from. Should statements be controversial, they may require individual citations. The company history sections for the first and second half of the 20th century do not have any citations. For example, you write that the company received an important price in Paris. This will need an individual reference for verification. Later on you speak of "masterpieces". If an external party has called their products "masterpieces" and this is widely accepted, this will also need a reference. Otherwise this might seem like marketing language and should be removed. I hope this helps. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Jake, The changes you asked for have been implemented. Please check again and let us know your comments. BR/ 34266Nieste (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for adding the sources. I am not sure, though, if the book by Bachmann can be considered independent. Having had a quick look at the works of the author, he seems to have done a lot of work around anniversary publications for various companies or organisations. This looks like contract work for the company.
 * On a different note, your edit patterns are very closely related to the company and individuals connected with the company, both on English and German Wikipedia. This gives rise to the impression you may be editing on behalf of the company or have a connection with the company outside of Wikipedia. If this is the case, you must disclose if you have a conflict of interest or are possibly a paid editor. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Grace Ihejiamaizu
Hi Jake, Kindly take a look at the updates on the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Grace_Ihejiamaizu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opatachibueze (talk • contribs) 22:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello ,

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
 * Backlog

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
 * Coordinator

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for  making  the occasional  mistake while  others can learn from  their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
 * This month's refresher course

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
 * Deletion tags

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
 * Paid editing


 * Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
 * Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent  enhancements to  the New Pages Feed and  features in the Curation  tool, and there are still more to  come. Due to the wealth  of information  now displayed by  ORES, reviewers are strongly  encouraged to  use the system now rather than Twinkle; it  will  also  correctly  populate the logs.
 * Not English
 * A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
 * Tools

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Jihan Wu for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jihan Wu 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/Jihan Wu 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. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)