User talk:JohnThorne/Archive 2020

Archives

 * Archives 2011-2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019

Disambiguation link notification for January 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Isaiah 43, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exodus ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Isaiah_43 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Isaiah_43?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Leviticus 19 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leviticus 19 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/Leviticus 19 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. Hog Farm (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zechariah 12, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jezreel ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Zechariah_12 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Zechariah_12?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

 * New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
 * New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines ; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
 * If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    20:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi JohnThorne. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember: The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for  maintenance so  that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

Recent patrol
Hey, I saw that you marked De Vorm as reviewed. Could you comment as to why you think that the subject meets notability guidelines? signed,Rosguill talk 00:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I hope some editors will improve the article soon, so it can be properly evaluated. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Denver Air Connection
Hi John. Welcome to New Page Patrol. I see you marked Denver Air Connection as reviewed. What indicators did you have that this airline is independently notable of Key Lime Air? I struggled to see it passing WP:NCORP but I might have missed sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * From the sources, Denver Air Connection is the subsidiary of Key Lime Air for passenger operations, whereas Key Lime Airlines also do cargo operations. For now, I change the marking to "unreviewed" until more references are added. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * While that's true it doesn't really explain how it meets NCORP - our strictest standard for sourcing. I noticed that had left a message about a different review so I explored your patrol log a bit more. Overall I think you're off to a good start as a reviewer. I think a general reread of WP:SPAM might be helpful. I see MERC-C moved Paul Fox (entrepreneur) which you'd reviewed to draftspace because of some UPE concerns which could be guessed at from the history. I also noticed some promotional language at FiveMyles Gallery. I've also noticed that you've done a lot of theater/arts reviews, this is great. This is not an area of great expertise but Danielle Galligan, Ashlei Sharpe Chestnut, and Felix White appear not to have the strongest cases for notability. Please don't hesitate as you reach "hard" decisions to reach out to me, or other reviewers at WT:NPR. I know there was definitely some rockiness when I started reviewing and I want to pass along what I can now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't know if you saw but the rest of the discussion about De Vorm is on my talk page. I also very much second that starting off at NPP is hard. Another thing that you can do when you come across an article that you're not sure what to do with is to add it to your watchlist and see what the next reviewer to come across it does with it. signed,Rosguill talk 02:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the good guidance and tips. I will keep on learning. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Barkeep49. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Cincinnati Business Courier, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. It is patrolled by Rosguill. JohnThorne (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm PK650. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Super Smash Brothers, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

PK650 (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Message moved from the userpage
Thanks for helping with the Murder of Rachael Anderson page. I live in Columbus, Ohio where the brutal crime occurred followed the case closely. I even attended the trial. So I know all the details and got kind of carried away when writing the page! I want the page to have important details without being overwhelming. Thanks for helping! LaraGingerbread (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC) The article should preserve the dignity of the victim without lessening the horrific nature of the crime. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks a million for reviewin' the same I want you support me and List of ATK (football club) players as the duplicatee has made an article List of ATK players and published what I had and forced my article to redirect. SHISHIR DUA (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC) I proposed deletion. Please support me. SHISHIR DUA (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Timeline of crystallography
Thanks very much for reviewing the new article Timeline of crystallography. Best regards, GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

First Epistle of John sourcing and mergers
To answer your emailed question:


 * Recently you made edits on the chapters of 1 John with notes that the articles need secondary sources and to be merged into one article. I would like to expand the articles so they can remain separate. Could you please advise what sources you expect to be added and what the requirements are to meet the standard you envision?

One of the pillars of the Wikipedia project is neutrality, so chapter articles can't simply repeat selected verses and amplify or riff on the point they are trying to make. Many people see this epistle as propaganda for a particular viewpoint, and part of what neutrality means is that the article should balance coverage of notable perspectives on the subject. So I would expect to see secondary sources with a variety of viewpoints, including those that consider the epistle sacred, maybe some that generally agree but treat it as literature, non-Christians who consider it related to the supernatural but interpret it differently than Christians, and non-Christians who consider the whole notion of the Christian God to be made up.

Wikipedia is also written for a general audience, and there is some level of detail that starts to become more appropriate for a Bible study guide than a general-interest encyclopedia, though those also tend to have a particular point of view. It's unclear to me that either Christian or non-Christians have much to say to a general audience about specific chapters, as most ritual and tradition and criticism and discussion of the New Testament focuses on the gospels.

As to what sort of content I think a general audience would be interested in, there is already a fair amount of that on First Epistle of John, such as a summary of the epistle for those that aren't going to read it, context about authorship and audience, general discussion of themes, and discussion of changes between versions. It would also be interesting to know if critics have pointed out any contradictions with other parts of the Bible, if any parts of this book are the basis of or contradict any important doctrines for any particular denominations, and if any parts have been controversial. (There's some of that for the Johannine Comma.) It would be interesting to know which Christian groups agree with the epistle, which consider it sacred, and which do not accept it (which apparently includes some Protestants. It would also be useful to have background information on the strains of Early Christianity which existed at the time the epistle was written (some of which have continued into modern times) which do not accept it, especially those which are being attacked by the epistle.

Some of that content would not apply to any particular chapter, so if there is more than will fit in a single article, it may make sense to create subarticles by topic rather than chapter. Unless we're getting an influx of new content very quickly, it may be easiest (and better for readers, given the currently nearly-empty chapter articles) to merge now and then spin out subarticles when there actually is too much for a single article. The existing chapter articles can always be restored from the edit history if they're needed in the future. -- Beland (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick response and excellent guidance. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:First Epistle of John chapters


A tag has been placed on Category:First Epistle of John chapters requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hosea 10, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jezreel ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Hosea_10 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Hosea_10?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. JohnThorne (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

sigh
dont you think there is a sort of defeatist tagging like that - surely there is not much angst or terror in resurrecting projects? there is a sinister aspect to retrograde encompassing inside the fold... trust you are able to understand the allusive rather than stating the obvious, so tiring to be explicit... JarrahTree 01:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

2 Kings 15
There are short references to Nelson and Thiele without full references in there. Would you mind adding them?

Could you also confirm that Pritchard 1971 was really Pritchard 1969? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nelson and Thiele corrected and added. Pritchard is 1969. Thanks. JohnThorne (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You can install Svick's script per these instructions to automatically get warned of these issues in the future BTW. It's very handy. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2 Kings 18, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulla ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/2_Kings_18 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/2_Kings_18?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. JohnThorne (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
Hello ,

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference. In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
 * Your help can make a difference
 * Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
 * Discussions and Resources
 * A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
 * Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
 * A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
 * Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2 Kings 19, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ararat ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/2_Kings_19 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/2_Kings_19?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 21:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Strong Hebrew
Template:Strong Hebrew has been nominated for merging with Template:Strong-number. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Trialpears (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Svoboda (political party)&#32; on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 07:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Acts 16
 * added links pointing to Illyricum and Pontus
 * Acts 5
 * added a link pointing to Hillel

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. JohnThorne (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2 Kings 23, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulla.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. JohnThorne (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2 Kings 22, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Artifact.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks. JohnThorne (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Acts of the Apostles verses


A tag has been placed on Category:Acts of the Apostles verses requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Adam in Islam&#32; on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 09:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello ,



It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to and  who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to, , and who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
 * Year in review

has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
 * Reviewer of the Year

As a special recognition and thank you has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
 * NPP Technical Achievement Award

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)