User talk:John M Wolfson/Archive 4

Lauren Sisler
I found an article with her fiance Dwightform (talk) 03:17 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks okay enough to me. Take care! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is, who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:


 * 1) with 964 points
 * 2) with 899 points
 * 3) with 817 points
 * 4) with 691 points
 * 5) with 388 points
 * 6) with 146 points
 * 7) with 145 points
 * 8) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!


 * wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
 * wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
 * wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
 * wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
 * wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
 * wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello ,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon. There are now holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action. Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays. Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox. Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards. Admin has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers. Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources. Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13. The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights. There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion. To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting the queue to 0
 * Coordinator
 * This month's refresher course
 * Tools
 * It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
 * It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
 * Reviewer Feedback
 * Second set of eyes
 * Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
 * Do be sure to have our talk page  on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
 * Arbitration Committee
 * Community Wish list

RfA
Hi. "This doesn't impact my view of you as an admin, but for future reference an answer I was looking for was that A7 explicitly exempts educational institutions. ". There are many ways to  skin a cat and I found the candidate's answer perfectly acceptable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Duly noted, especially as I don't believe he intends to work much with CSD. Have a good day! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Jonathan Peter speedy
Hi, I speedied Jonathan Peter while NPPing and only noticed afterwards that it had already been speedied then declined by you. I will note that I checked IMDB and other sources and the guy's only "credits" appear to be uncredited appearances in a couple of shorts no one's heard of. However, if you think it should go to AfD I'll happily rescind my speedy & move it there. JamesG5 (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey, yes, I do believe you should either PROD it (but not BLPPROD, as the "External Links" constitute references of sorts), or if you feel that deletion would be controversial (I don't necessarily think that it would) take it to AfD (from what I know of it at this time I'd probably vote delete on it), but I think that it just barely skims by A7. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

New York State Assembly Map
Can you make an SVG version of your NY State Assembly Map please?
 * I'm afraid I don't currently have software to do so, but I will see if I can get something in the next few days (I'm busy with something else at the moment). In the meantime I have placed an SVG tag on the Commons page for the seat-change map in case anyone else can do it sooner. Also, please make sure to sign your posts by placing "~" at the end of it. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!
Just wanted to thank you for looking over the Irene Haschke page. It may not meet the biography standard in English but is listed in Spanish. I was looking her up and doing reading on her, so decided to add an English page. I would really like it if it could be expanded. I think it's important to document anyone and everyone with a story during that war. Many thanks again for taking notice. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No worries, please do read up on our notability guidelines, as they may vary from other WMF projects. Have a good day! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

FAC Candidacy
I hope the FAC candidacy is going well and thank you for including me.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's going fine right now, and no problem! Hope you have a good day. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Article merge
While not traditional or customary I closed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bare notability as a non-Admin "Merge" and performed the merger. I feel that since I was the only one that contested the initial action and changed my mind (more because of length of time) it could have been boldly done without controversy. Even though I am considered an "involved editor" the customary time had expired twice and seeking a "formal" Admin closing unnecessary so was just procedural. You may want to take a look and see if things appear alright or make any corrections you deem necessary. Otr500 (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Otr500, I have no objections on the merger. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Financial District, Manhattan
Thanks for your addition of this section. In regards to your edit summary, some NYC articles only have info about political boundaries, such as Harlem and Lower East Side. Others have info about the current representatives as well, e.g. Crown Heights, Brooklyn.

Anyway, I'm wondering if we should add the more detailed info to additional articles. I think this would require a template, since districts change every ten years, and I was hoping to add these sections after next year's census. epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey epicgenius, no problem. I have occasionally tried to extend the info back in time, but I wonder how far back I can do so and have it still be meaningful and not original research. Interestingly enough, it's often easier to find district info for the early 20th century than the later 20th century; for New York I have rough info for districts up until 1965 and since 1992 for the Assmebly (see my sandbox), but nothing in between then: same for Chicago Community Areas, where there's a gap between roughly the 1960s and early 2000s. I'll try to look at alamanacs and Newspapers to fill in the gaps. As for templates, perhaps we could add as of to the sections. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I just looked in your sandbox - great work so far! I think it would be useful to create a subsection of the Politics & Government section, where you can put this table of historical representatives.
 * I also think the existing info on state, local and federal representation can be combined into one subsection, possibly titled "Current representation", since each of these are one-paragraph sections. I appreciate your work, and am thinking of adding more political info to NYC neighborhood articles that I'm currently working on (e.g. St. George, Staten Island or East Village, Manhattan). epicgenius (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Theorema Egrigium
I noticed that you deleted the stub tag for Theorema Egregium. I think that the stub tag should be retained because the page is missing many basic details, including the equation associated with the theorem or even a sketch of its proof. I don't want to undo your change before discussing it with you. Can you please explain the rationale for removing the stub tag? I am referring to your deletion of.

-V madhu (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that it is missing a lot of information, but on its own it appears to be a bit too long for stub status. Would Missing work better? (Also, for future reference, stub templates go on the bottom of articles.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Would the “missing” tag go on the top? V madhu (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019


This year's Reviewer of the Year is. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
 * Reviewer of the Year

Special commendation again goes to who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to and  who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by.
 * Redirect autopatrol

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
 * Source Guide Discussion

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This month's refresher course

Alida
The 20.000 hits are not something I made up. It is easy to see just press View history in the cornee of Alida Morbergs article. Then press on the Pageviews button. That the talk page has no major activity is just an indication that the article is actually in need of being part of this project. [] BabbaQ (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!
Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are, , and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

WP on OTD
Hi, you added Wikipedia to Selected anniversaries/January 15. The reason we don't include this article is WP:Navel-gazing. I think it's a type of self-promotion and that it's tacky. While WP is of course a notable subject, it's just a little gauche for us to celebrate ourselves. Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 17:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Howcheng, I understand the sentiment but I respectfully disagree in this particular context. The blurb is not particularly promotional, merely stating that it was launched after the domain was registered. If it included that it would later become the largest encyclopedia ever (among other things) or emphasized that it's "the site you're reading now!" then it would be rather promotional/celebratory/unencyclopedic in my opinion. Given that Wikipedia is indeed part of the real world now I think we would be remiss in omitting it. The image may or may not be a bit much, but I think it's high time this blurb be included with that date. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:10, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not the verbiage used in the blurb itself; it's the mere fact that it's making an appearance on the Main Page that makes it navel-gazing. And now that I look at the article more closely, irrespective of the previous point of contention, it's not even eligible for inclusion because of the two outdated tags. — howcheng  {chat} 07:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I still do not agree that it's inherently navel-gazing (Wikipedia is one of the top ten websites, and the OTD isn't a conspicuous part of the Main Page in any event), but now that you mention it I see several such tags, so the point is moot this year. (I also think that History of Wikipedia would be a better target, but that's ineligible as well.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Writing this down now since it's in my head and I may forget when/if the article ever becomes eligible: when we feature an article in any Main Page section, it's Wikipedia saying, "We want you [the reader] to read this article" (which is also why there are minimum standards for inclusion). So I hope you can see why I find the sentiment "Wikipedia wants you to read an article about Wikipedia" inappropriate. — howcheng  {chat} 00:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That is fair enough, we can discuss it if/when it becomes eligible. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

NAC with "controversy"
By your own non-admin closure at Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester (and this also applies to Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester), there is controversy in the AfD. By WP:BADNAC#2, you should therefore leave the close to an admin. Would you consider reverting your close and letting an admin handle it? — MarkH21talk 18:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Mark, I admit that I didn't adequately consider the controversial aspects of the AfDs in my close (and indeed my decision to close). However, I believe that I was correct in both of those cases, so I don't think administrator intervention is necessary (especially since BADNAC#2 only discourages such NACs rather than prohibiting them). Having said that, if an admin feels otherwise they have my blessing in intervening and deciding the cases as they see fit (and could probably do so without it tbh). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose the wording is a little ambiguous, since BADNAC says A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations: followed by Such closes are better left to an administrator. I think this suggests that such closes just shouldn't happen. But anyways, would you mind reverting the close so it goes back into the AfD list whereby an admin could close the AfD? I don't particularly want to find a particular admin or post on a noticeboard to find one, if it could be avoided. Thanks, by the way, for the considerate response! — MarkH21talk 19:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * While I don't think it'll make a difference in the result, it's not quite a SNOW and process is important. I will get to that shortly. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Drummond
Thanks for reviewing Drummond - New page review is an essential part of keeping the Wikipedia healthy - thanks! (But I deleted the "orphan" tag as it is now linked to two other pages). Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * no problem, thank you for creating it! Always nice to see a fellow creator of political history articles. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Especially those who suffer from insomnia! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You can say that again! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Up late again! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 07:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

See also: Mz7 (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.


 * Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 08:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

FAR notifications template
Here is a template listing FAs (and dates) with talk page notifications that a Featured article review is needed. According to the FAR instructions, after waiting five to seven days to see if anyone engages to address the issues, anyone can bring an article to FAR, subject to a) no more than one nomination every two weeks; and b) no more than four nominations on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this will come in handy. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Aldine Square, Chicago
— Wug·a·po·des​ 06:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 00:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for James Thompson (surveyor)
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

FAC: Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)
Hi John. I have just opened a featured-article nomination for Aftermath (Rolling Stones album). I found your name at another nomination and wanted to let you know, in case you would be interested in offering a review, which would be much appreciated if you have the time and interest. Thanks. isento (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear Isento,


 * I'll see and take a look. Thanks for letting me know!


 * – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Washington Heights, Chicago copyedit
It's done. Good luck with FA and all the best,  Mini  apolis  21:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll see how it goes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

RfA questions
Hey, John M Wolfson! I saw the query at RfA talk, came here to follow up on your response. What are you trying to get at when you ask a standardized question of every candidate, whether you ask it of 2 or 5 or 13 of them? My feeling's always been that if I don't have a question specific to my concerns about a candidate, why bother asking a question at that RfA? Can you share your reasoning? --valereee (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Valereee, thanks for reaching out! I've tried to ask such questions as a gauge of candidates' skills in basic adminny areas, in this case CSD. That particular question seemed initially good as CSD is a fairly objective and litmus-y area of adminship (as well as one I'm more personally familiar with), and the question itself is easy enough.


 * However, it has proven to be problematic as the RfA talk has shown. While there have been brilliant answers to the question (see this one by Newslinger, for example), I have never opposed an RfA solely or even primarily due to an unsatisfactory answer to it. I have also over the course of my WikiCareer learned that there are many ways to the mop, and that CSD isn't as universal across adminabili as I once thought it was, so any skill questions should be tailored to the candidate's particular experience. It's also been a crutch for when I can't think of any other questions, as 13 RfAs show. Therefore, as I may have implied in the RfA page, I am retiring the elementary school question for now. I have asked other questions at RfAs and will continue to do so. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020
Hello ,

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
 * Source Guide Discussion

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
 * Redirects


 * Discussions and Resources
 * There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
 * A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
 * A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
 * A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
 * Refresher

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Jefferson Vance Owen
--valereee (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)