User talk:Jdcomix/Archive 2

Gamergate discretionary sanctions notification
Woodroar (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Saw this earlier, already adhering to the restrictions (already made my 1 revert for today). Thanks, though. :) Jdcomix (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Read your reasoned plea for more neutrality on the Anita Sarkeesian article, together with the biased stonewall you immediately and predictably encountered. Just wanted to offer my thanks for having the courage to wade into an incredibly and alarmingly frustrating corner of wikipedia. Here's hoping that one day senior editors can amass the courage to deal with the army of worker bees who pounce on any effort to bring more neutrality to so obviously one-sided articles, such as Sarkeesian's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.79.83.92 (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Their arguments against it were fair, though. The media is obviously biased for Sarkeesian, so there's no good sources criticizing her. Jdcomix (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_Trump&mdash;CNN_beating_video
In Articles_for_deletion/Donald_Trump%E2%80%93CNN_beating_video your close was against the raw vote count without an explanation. This would a controversial close even for an admin, and non-admins should not be making controversial closes, so please revert your close. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What? The consensus was to redirect/merge. That's what the consensus was, and they provided the best arguements. However, I did !vote on it, so I'll revert the close. If you want to close it for the same reason, feel free to, though. Have a nice day. :) Jdcomix (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Franklin 17
Why did you do a cut/paste move? To preserve page history and for the reasons given at WP:ATTREQ, those are not allowed. Wait for an admin to move it. YE Pacific Hurricane  22:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

what do i do
what do i do when i noticed that all of wikis expert sources are wrong about the altleft article then they stop me cause its original reasearch but i have primary sources that prove my case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:117E:6D00:3158:C98E:9652:EA0D (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

altleft
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/ https://altleft.com/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeLeft/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:117E:6D00:A0C4:8FED:ECAD:1157 (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the good faith effort to find some sources, but wordpress isn't a reliable source. Thanks. :) Jdcomix (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

but to quote the wiki editors and, since there seem to be not actual self-identifying adherents, and "there is no alt left" but i found people who since 2015 have been a group and calling themselves the alternative left and the editors just ignore it, one even said that it was satire i mean i have the truth here and its ignored please read the links read them 2001:8003:117E:6D00:433:304F:CC39:2D5F (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Guns of Boom
Hey there.

Your NAC of the Guns of Boom AfD appears to be an inappropriate closure, as the outcome is a close call or controversial, and should be better left to an admin. Would you please undo your closure and allow an admin to close it? — Za  wl  19:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted your closure of the Roman Reigns debate. You really need to read these AfDs before closing them after just glancing at the !votes. You also need to provide rationale for why you closed it the way you did, especially when the !vote is close. Best to leave the really close ones up to the admins.LM2000 (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Your fringe claim at Hurricane Harvey
Hello Jdcomix, I've noticed that you removed well sourced content at the article, with the notice, Take to talk, bordering on WP:FRINGE Notice, that The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing global warming associated pages. Read more about discretionary sanctions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions If you want to discuss page edits, start a new section on the article talk page. prokaryotes (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Check the Harvey talk page, I posted my reasoning there, it also kind of borders on UNDUE to have an entire section dedicated to something covered by one or two sources. I wouldn't be against a brief mention in the lede or something, however. Jdcomix (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to note, I've added additional sources to the talk page. Climate change isn't the only factor, we already mention drilling affecting sea level, so the section heading should be broader. . dave souza, talk

prokaryotes (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Maria
Why did you create this redirect when Maria has not been upgraded to a hurricane? Master of Time  ( talk ) 20:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it has? Check the NHC. The reason I made it prematurely was because the NHC uses the ATCF as a base. The ATCF updates are posted on Tropical Tidbits, and it said Maria was a hurricane, so I made the redirect. Jdcomix (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Check the timestamp. At the time of that comment, Maria was still officially classified as a tropical storm. Regardless, we shouldn't make changes to Wikipedia on the sole basis of the ATCF 2+ hours early in my opinion. Its hardly a high-importance issue, but I thought I would mention it regardless. Master of Time   ( talk ) 21:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You shouldnt be using the ATCF for any upgrades, TD to TS TS to HU or HU to MH becasue things can and do change on the ATCF. In fact it annoyed NHC enough the other year, that they decided to put a two hour blackout on sites like NRL, FNMOC and the ATCF so that the advisory would be the main source of information before NRL, FNMOC and the ATCF etc.Jason Rees (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

ACE
It seems like you're updating ACE from an outside source. Please adhere to Talk:2017 Atlantic hurricane season/ACE calcs.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Unofficial Records
Please do not add any records to 2017 Atlantic hurricane season until the final damage totals are released. An unofficial record is false information. It either is a record or it isn't. --Figfires (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
Hello Jdcomix, my edit was the only one and you are not an admin to revert on this site. Regards --Serols (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I edited page about Simferopol Airport, because information is not valid. For example - information about flights from/to Istanbul for a short period in August 2014. It was only one indirect flight with landing in Anapa and in Istanbul airport this flight was marked as "Anapa-Istanbul", not "Simferopol-Istanbul". The same situation was with flights to Yerevan. You could check it in official site of Yerevan Airport. This information was written by Russians for creating propaganda that sanctions against Russia is not worked and Simferopol Airport is used for international flights. Until somebody prooved this information about execution this flights like regular and it was marked in Istanbul/Yerevan with destination "Simferopol" - this information is not correct.

Your last message
Hi

I just moved a line to a different paragraph where it would make more sense. I'm newish to Wikipedia and was going to explain the removal and re-inserion when I'd done the actual re-insertion.

If you'd thus had the appropriate patience to wait till I was finished you'd have seen this pattern.

I'm not removing any of the info in this page (it all seems appropriate) just re-positioning it so it makes a more coherent narrative eg planned sequence -her political editorship -Then her bias controversy -Then that last paragraph

Not as it reads now -her political editorship -a bit about bias -a bit about Brexit -Another bit about bias -then her salary (??!)

So if you'd have the common courtesy to let me finish this then it would all make sense, I do think you have really jumped in very inappropriately and way too early — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.174.28 (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, I appreciate your feedback. Sorry if it seemed like I was WP:BITEing you, I was in a rush and I'll try to pay more attention in the future. Jdcomix (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yoon Jeonghan
I didn't do anything wrong. You have absolutley mixed up the people. When you Google the kpop singer Yoon jeonghan your information pops up on this site with eberything else being correct. Jeong Han is some handball player, cool. But at least make sure that the pictures anf websites correlate that. I'm sure other fans as well would like this fixed. So I tried to display his correct information. Threatening someone for fixing a mistake done a popular singer isn't bad. Trueblue1988 (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If don't believe me Google kpop group seventeen and Yoon Jeonghan and then see that your information is incorrectly displayed below his pictures. I wasn't trying to offend just fix something on a good singer. Trueblue1988 (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If there are pictures of a handsome long haired guy your information displayed is wrong then and linked to someone who's never omayed sports before. And was training to debut as a singer not participating in the Olympics. Trueblue1988 (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Mike Dunleavy Jr.
Hi Jdcomix,

In regards to your comment about Mike Dunleavy jr. as a Packer fan, I read about that somewhere online, though I forgot where and was thus unable to provide a source to it. However, I guarantee I am not making that up, especially since I followed him when he played for the Milwaukee Bucks and learned about that either on their website or somewhere else. Thank you for bringing this to my attention and again, I'm making none of this up. I just failed to add proper citation. If you could show me how to do so that might be nice, otherwise I can probably figure it out on my own.

Best, Wiscipidier

New Page Reviewing
I notice that you have the "administrator someday" userbox. Reviewing new pages is one of the best ways to develop experience needed to successfully wield the mop. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  10:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hello Jdcomix. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

ANI Experiences survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

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

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

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


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

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

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

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

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

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

relisting of Articles for deletion/Miss Washington's Outstanding Teen ‎
Hello, Jdcomix. I notice that, about an hour ago, you closed or relisted some 40 AfD's in the span of only about ten minutes. That seems an awfully fast pace. I have particular concern about the above-named discussion, because it was one of several similar nominations. The other nominations received similar amounts of discussion and were closed by administrators without relisting. And so, I'm asking that you undo your relisting and allow this one to be closed by an administrator without everyone having to wait an extra week. Thank you for your attention to this matter. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a clear consensus reached, though. If there isn't a consensus then the policy is to relist it at least once. Jdcomix (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt response. But you are misquoting policy.  Per WP:RELIST, relisting is not an appropriate action if there has been substantive policy-based discussion (such as was the case for the AfD in question).  I renew my request for undoing the relisting.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And for Articles for deletion/Grebe Lake (Alaska). The only user arguing to keep misidentified the article subjects being discussed. This would have been evident if the AFD was actually read before being relisted. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Jdcomix. I appreciate that you've removed the relisting notice from the deletion discussion. But you haven't also moved the log of the discussion back to its original day -- it continues to appear as a discussion started on February 17, and not on its original date of February 10. Without restoring the discussion to its original logged date, the discussion remains effectively re-listed because it won't show up in the logs as a 7-day old discussion until February 24. Please do a complete job of undoing the re-listing. Thank you. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

AfD closure
Hi, I wonder if you would not mind relisting the discussion instead? Articles for deletion/Bounce Exchange. With only two !votes, the discussion has been limited, so a relisting may be helpful. Hopefully, it may lead to additional participation. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I also would like to know why you closed Articles for deletion/Robert Amen instead of relisting when only five editors participated in the discussion? Three were for keep (one coming from a banned user) and two for delete. If anything it may have possibly been closed no consensus, but given little participation it really should have been relisted.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The arguments presented by the keep voters were better executed, the article creator demonstrated the potential for expansion of the article. Jdcomix (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The article creator never participated in the discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for relisting Bounce Exchange. Separately, re: Articles for deletion/Miss Georgia's Outstanding Teen, it might be better to let an admin close / relist this one, since the topic is contentious. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Robert Amen
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Robert Amen. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rusf10 (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

AfD closes
Please leave AfDs open for a minimum of 7 full days unless a criterion for early close is met - you closed several early today without reason. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If you could hold off from relisting until the initial 7 days is up, that would also be good. --Michig (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Michael J. Brooks
Why relist this yourself? Why not let an admin decide what to do with it in a few hours after the full 7 days went by? This discussion is already compromised due to the SPAs from suspected socks or offwiki canvasing. Not criticizing the assessment you made, but was hoping an admin would make a comment on the issue. WikiVirusC (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC
 * Didn't you read the comment I made when relisting? I gave a detailed reason why I relisted it there, it's so an admin can see the discussion and decide what to do with it. Jdcomix (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I said I didn't have an issue with the assessment(comment/reason) you gave, I asked why not let an admin do it instead? WikiVirusC (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd take the workload off of them, they're already busy enough as it is. There are plenty of non-admins who relist discussions, it's not against any rule per WP:Deletion process. I made a few bad relists and closes, which I undid. Jdcomix (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not saying you broke any rules. I would just ask in the future, if there is an issue that may need admin attention, such as suspected sockpuppery or offwiki coordination such as this, you allow an admin to step it. Relisting isn't going to take workload away from admins as eventually one will still need to look at it, and it will just involve another weeks worth of discussion for them to go through. Anyways I'm moving on now. WikiVirusC (talk)</b> 20:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

User talk:109.153.91.71
I have to let you know that users are allowed to delete warnings on their own user pages, so I will have to ask you to not delete the warnings on User talk:109.153.91.71. CLCStudent (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. Question, though: why were you deleting warnings on their page? That made me think that it violated policy to delete warnings or something. Jdcomix (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That one was an accident. CLCStudent (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Welp, now everyone else is reverting the IP? I'm confused, hahaha. Jdcomix (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it is still against policy. I warned everybody else too. CLCStudent (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jeff Bezanson
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeff Bezanson. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Icewhiz (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh good grief, another one? What am I doing that's so egregious that people have now suggested banning me from closing AfDs for? I'm so confused as to why everything I've done lately has been so controversial. Jdcomix (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This clearly is not one of the cases in WP:NOTBADNAC - this is a close call, it requires evaluating arguements and not just head counting. Of the two keepers one was the article creator and the other was a co founder. Since the last rellist there was a redirect vote. What got me rolling here was the ANI report which had me take a second look - and after I saw the speed at which you were editing - this one requires a bit more parsing than that.Icewhiz (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've also stopped closing discussions forever now, I'm just planning on relisting them unless something changes because my decision making has apparently been extremely poor. Jdcomix (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are NACing, you should do it on non-close calls. A no consensus NAC is by definition a close call.Icewhiz (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Its an experience thing Jd, not necessarily judgement. You just need more feel for what arguments count. DRV is a good place to gain understanding. Spartaz Humbug! 06:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My own two cents (all be it from someone who hasn't NAC/relisted yet - and I'm an AfD regular) - pick a few topic areas you are good at and watch the deletion sorting lists on them - and participate in the AfDs. After you do that for a while - you might want to try nominating (I started nomming in earnest after joining NPP, there are a few other ways of looking for suspect articles (e.g. orphans or close to orphans, walled gardens, articles that haven't been edited in a long while, creations by blocked users, and I guess quite a few additional ways). I personally would only NAC if it was clear to all participants (e.g. a SNOW situation or a very clear result after a week). Relisting is actually a tough judgement call - basically an admin doing that is evaluating no consensus (or close to no consensus) at the moment + thinks waiting for additional !votes makes sense. This isn't just housekeeping (it isn't - "OK, 7 days are up, lets relist" - it require an evaluation of the discussion which is usually a close one in this situation). In some topic areas more AfD !voters are really needed (e.g business people or companies comes to mind (and I keep on putting them off - lots of PROMO crud), and there are others). If you want to stick to tough calls - you can try !voting on Category:Relisted AfD debates - which are by definition relisted due to either being close or needing participation. Personally - my !votes take at least 2-3 minutes in an article, and often 5-10 minutes (for closer situations). Nomming takes a bit more. In both cases (assuming it isn't a WP:NOT fail which is a separate issue, but a WP:N issue) - I go over all the references in the article, and do a WP:BEFORE of my own.Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Icewhiz, that's hugely helpful. I'll try that. Jdcomix (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Two AfD closures
Hi, I believe that these two discussions should be closed by admins:


 * Articles for deletion/Miss Georgia's Outstanding Teen
 * Articles for deletion/Allison Brown (2nd nomination)

Both discussions have been contentious and are not suitable candidates for NAC. I would appreciate if you could undo the closes. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jdcomix (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Time out
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for 24 hours. Please see this ANI thread for details.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll think about what I can do better when I come back after the block ends. Thanks for all of the suggestions, guys. Jdcomix (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, this ping did not ping . For a ping to work, the mention and the signature must be added in the same edit.  ~ GB fan 19:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, let me try again, haha, I decided to self-impose a ban on me closing or relisting AfDs from now on, especially as this is the overwhelming consensus at ANI, I'll just go back to reverting vandalism, which is what I'm good at, when my block ends. Thanks and sorry for screwing up! Jdcomix (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Not to kick you while you’re down, but when you undid the relist of Articles for deletion/Grebe Lake (Alaska), you just removed the template without moving it back to the correct AFD log page, so it didn’t really undo the relist at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I moved it back myself, but for whatever reason it isn’t showing up at WP:AFD/Old. Rather than trying to figure out why I’m going to hope an uninvolved admin or two are still watching this page and will just take a moment to close it as the result is pretty obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I can ping one of them for you if you want: can you close the AfD properly? Jdcomix (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Jdcomix and Beeblebrox - just responding to this ping and the request for assistance here. I went through and double-checked everything and it looks like Articles for deletion/Grebe Lake (Alaska) was closed properly by the closing admin and all closing procedures completed - the article and talk pages were both deleted with the correct criterion and the close template properly applied to the AFD discussion. I went and manually purged the server cache of WP:OLD (including each date entry listed) as well as WP:OAFD and I don't see this AFD discussion listed on these pages - is it still listed? Am I missing something somewhere? If there are still issues, I'll be more than happy to help - just ping me and let me know exactly what the issue is and where and I can certainly lend a hand.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue was just that it was still open, looks like another admin got it, so all good. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I closed that AfD. XFDcloser failed to delete the articles, so I had to manually delete them (and the associated talk pages). I assumed there was some formatting problem that prevented AFDcloser from parsing correctly. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice
Greetings, Jdcomix! I know you've already accepted the result of the topic ban discussion, but here's your formal notice:

By decision of the Wikipedia Community, you are indefinitely topic banned from closing or relisting any deletion discussion.

This topic ban will be logged at WP:EDRC. As you've been receptive to the criticism you've received and have shown a willingness to respond in good faith, you may appeal this ban after three months, but you are strongly advised that the community standard on unbanning is a six month period of clean editing, and it will reflect very positively on you if you voluntarily wait longer than the minimum period. Please post any appeal to WP:AN.

Let me know if you have any questions. Regards, S warm   ♠  20:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Orthodoxy RM
You recently participated in an AfD discussion for the Anti-Orthodoxy article here. A request to move (retitle) that article is currently under discussion here if you'd care to participate. — <span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack 05:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Discretionary sanctions alert

 * I am posting this on your talkpage out of an abundance of caution solely because you recently edited Talk:Sarah Jeong and, as the message says, not suggesting any policy violation by you. Abecedare (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification, have a great evening :) Jdcomix (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You were so close
Almost beat me. You're good at this! Abequinn14 (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong
So if I go to the Donald Trump entry, will I find any negative things about him? Her tweets were wildly racist. She was rewarded by a job with the NY Times. Sad you have to protect her but you are covering up her racism.
 * Despite the fact that the page details the controversy???? Jdcomix (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It whitewashes the controversy. She came up with those tweets all on her own. They weren't responses to other tweets, they were something she came up without any prompting. I'm not sure why the truth isn't something her profile can handle. The NY Times did indeed reward her with a job and thought nothing about her horrible, racist tweets.

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)

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)

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)

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

Please participate to the talk pages consultation
Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link update
The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 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)