User talk:Julietdeltalima/Archive 2

Sapir-Whorf and Linguistic Relativism Entry
Can you help me cite the book then? Or, do I need to cite the book since I mention the title and author? It's just that I thought you needed a link to go with the statement.Lovelikechai (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Lovelikechai, you do need a link to go with the statement, it's true. Citing 1984 isn't enough, though, because you're not quoting from the novel itself—you're describing a critical perspective that has been taken with respect to the novel.  (If the statement you made is based on your own interpretation, that's not appropriate for Wikipedia; see Wikipedia's guidelines on avoiding inclusion of original research.) You need to find a reliable source for the proposition described in Sparknotes.  If the 1984 Sparknotes has a bibliography, that's a place to start looking for those reliable sources. As far as the mechanics of citations, the Wikipedia Adventure tutorial is silly and juvenile, but actually more useful and concise than any advice I can give you!  I hope this is helpful.  I am not always able to respond quickly to messages, so if you have ongoing questions, I highly recommend asking the editors at WP:TEAHOUSE, who are able to be more consistently responsive (I'm just a volunteer, with a regular job, who dives in for 5 or 10 minutes here and there when I'm holding on a phone call or something).  Good luck! -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  18:32, 22 March 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.

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter
The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
 * Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
 * 🇮🇳 Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
 * SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
 * 🇺🇸 Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
 * Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
 * Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

See what you did here?
Check the previous edit! Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

You've got mail!
SoWhy 14:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

prestonaswiki
Hi Just replying to the comment you posted to me on Tanya Burr's page. What you claimed is not the case at all. You asked for me to respond so that's what I am doing. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prestontaswiki (talk • contribs) 13:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding edits
Hi Julietdeltalima, I got a message from you recently and wanted to respond. I was editing the Radius Books Article as an intern (i'm not being paid) and was only updating the book list for 2016-2018 and replacing defunct links with the official website pages. I was adding factual information, nothing about my opinion about the company. If this is a problem, please help me understand.

Best

Rsinclairgregg (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

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.

United Airlines Flight 232
First of all, I have seen trivia before, the majority of it not added by me. There has been trivia I did add (I made sure I did it in good faith and didn't make it look like vandalism) and there have been people who liked it. This trivia was supposed to be good faith, but backfired because I accidentally bloated it up. So yeah, I'm sorry. I'll take it to the talk page. However, at the same time, I do like how you put the Notable survivors and Notable Fatalities together into one section called "Notable passengers." Tigerdude9 (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Update 6/16/18. Users told me not to add my proposed trivia, so I won't do it. Tigerdude9 (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tamil cuisine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sambar ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Tamil_cuisine check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Tamil_cuisine?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 July newsletter
The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
 * SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Fburleson
You deleted my post which was apart of a Class assignment for a Grade to contribute. As far as the topic Japanese Cuisine, some of the topics were way off course. Now because of you i have no way of showing that i did contributed the page and now my grade is a zero. thanks for screwing up people Instead of deleting, you could've been considerate  enough to comunicated with me befor deleting getting my point of view. Oh and as far as netural points of view, you need to revisit that whole post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fburleson (talk • contribs) 12:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletions on Fibre Channel and AI
Julia, there is no intention to add promotional materials. The additions were architectural pictures (which the Fibre Channel did not have as a comparison) and a webinar some elementary basics on AI (artificital intelligence). We find most people have not been able to grasp the basics here and need more than the super technical descriptions provided in the encyclopedia. We have referenced similar materials under other topcs in Wikipedia and they have not been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camberleyb (talk • contribs) 19:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Hi Julietdeltalima. Can you please help me better understand an edit I made? It was on an article that had a dead link. I took the proper steps in labeling it a Dead Link (so I thought), and then right below it I added a comparable replacement link that covered the exact same topic as the dead link did. The article was Writer's Block. Did I edit everything ok? Thank you. Ampleaptitude (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. I'll respond on your talk page so we can keep the discussion there and you can find it more readily. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  17:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Rakrakan Festival
Hello Julietdeltalima. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Rakrakan Festival, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article now has several references. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers. Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
 * June backlog drive


 * New technology, new rules
 * New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
 * Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
 * Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.


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

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Signpost
 * The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Question about conflict of interest
Hi there! Thanks for helping me get started with Wikipedia. I have studied food addiction extensively. I'm the principle writer of a textbook on the subject. I work from the science which means that I cite a peer-reviewed references for my comments. You asked if I had a conflict of interest which would prevent me from writing objectively. I think the answer is no because I rely on science.

Am I on track?

Thanks again for your help.

Joan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanrifland (talk • contribs) 18:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

So glad to meet you
Thank you so much for your response to my post. I appreciate your guidance.

So what I'm thinking is that it's best to cite others in my field. There's plenty of research so it's easy to avoid my own work.

What'd I'd really like to do is create a new page for Processed Food Addiction. I'll read through the link you gave me on wp.expert and I'm sure I'll have more questions after that.

Am I communicating with you properly?

j--Joanrifland (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This works so far, ! My best advice as an initial matter, before you get into the nitty-gritty of writing a new article, is to spend a little time editing existing articles and getting a feel for Wiki markup and the overall editing/writing philosophy and jargon here. I'm a big fan of clicking on the "Random article" link (in the left menu, five down from the top under the Wiki-globe) and doing work on articles in fields I know very little about or that I would never have put on a personal top-20 list of interesting subjects. I've been at this for four years enforcing WP:NPOV and watching out for WP:COI issues, and I still acknowledge that it's a lot easier for me to get into an appropriately objective mindset when dealing with, say, an article about some national highway in Taiwan than an article about the highway where my undergrad and professional schools were situated.


 * I'm being harangued by an underling now for help with something before everyone can go home for the weekend, so I'll close. Best of luck, again! -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  00:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. I've gotten notice that I've made the recommended 10 edits before attempting an article. I see that I can draft an article in my sandbox. Would you be able to see it there? I've read about POV and COI. I think I can objectively site sources describing food addiction but I would appreciate feedback as I go along. Is getting feedback permissible in the course of putting up a new page? Thanks again. Joanrifland

I'm sorry...
...that there's people, men most likely, who think that they are entitled to talk like that. It's very embarrassing and I can't apologize enough. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You needn't take that weight on your own shoulders, dear Drmies, but I appreciate your thoughts and quick action very much! Alas, as it happens, I am cursed to belong to a profession in which my immediate response to such Vegemite-fuelled laddism is, "eh, well, at least he can't ask for an award of financial sanctions." It is unfortunate that anyone has to develop this thick of a skin any more. Onward and upward (like the mighty War Eagle)! Take care! -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  00:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, DID YOU JUST WAR EAGLE ME? Oh man. I'm going to need some ice cream. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But seriously, it's time we start carrying some of the load. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me, please ping me when you're ready for RfA. ;) Drmies (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 September newsletter
The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:


 * Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
 * Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
 * Other contestants who qualified for the final round were 🇲🇭 Nova Crystallis, Iazyges,  SounderBruce,  🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack and 🇺🇸 Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The reason why I insist on my revision
What I must emphasize is, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan are both parts of China, undoubtedly. I don't think my revision has anything less neutral. Hong Kong and Macau have been back to us and only few countries still establish diplomatic relations with Taiwan so please do not confuse the neutral point of view and sovereignty issues. Thank you for communicating with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razvan Mu (talk • contribs) 11:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Discuss this and gain consensus on the talk page of the article. No one gets to "insist on" anything in Wikipedia and if you take that attitude you are not going to last long in this editorial environment, which requires consensus. I will not engage with you further on my talk page because it is not the appropriate place for this discussion regarding article content; the discussion should be on the article's talk page. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  16:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

File names in articles
Please do not edit the name of files in articles as you did to Polemonium caeruleum, it breaks the link to the file. I have corrected the mistake. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask on my talk page, or to post at the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Sam Sailor 22:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand, . It was an inadvertent mistake. My apologies. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  22:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

reply
Although it may be tempting because of its prominence, Wikipedia is not a place to promote our personal beliefs and essays (WP:SOAPBOX, WP:PROMOTION, WP:OR). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 18:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Juliet.

Question: why does Wikipedia use an illogical dating format?

In everything I can think of, we go from the more general to the more specific as we go from first to last (when speaking), or from left to right (when writing). We speak of having "five dollars and twelve cents", not "I have twelve cents and five dollars." Or a bag of rice weighs "8 pounds and 3 ounces," not "it weighs 3 ounces and 8 pounds." And in plain numbering (e.g., 89,543), the left most digit is the greatest quantity (tens of thousands) and each digit to the right represents a tenth of the value of the one to its left (i.e., the "9" represents nine thousands, 1/10th of tens of thousands to its left). Again, we go from most general to most specific.

Your comment on my User Talk page was stamped: "23:26, 28 September 2018" when, if you think about it, the logically consistent layout would be 2018 September 28, 23:26 -- going from years to months to days to hours and last to minutes, and within each of those time periods, going from the more general (thousands of years) to more specific (hundreds of years, tens of years, and then year). (The use of the word for the month gives instant context that this series of numbers indicates it is a date. As long as spacing is correct, the comma after the 28 is needless but not offensive, so I included it for your benefit.)

Can you please pass this suggestion to make Wikipedia's guidelines compliant with my more logical dating format up the Wikipedia "chain of command"?

Thank you.

Phantom in ca (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no "chain of command", Phantom in ca; I have no different status than you do. There is a Manual of Style that prescribes date formats for consistency across the encyclopedia.  There are ways to suggest changes to it, but I don't know offhand what they are and don't have time today to research it; I suggest you ask at WP:TEAHOUSE.   The thing about writing for a publication is that you have to follow the publication's style guide even if you think it's illogical and you hate it, unless you get a consensus to the contrary.  I personally am a fan of the Oxford comma, but MOS:COMMA dictates to the contrary, and so, in article space, I don't use the Oxford comma. I can do whatever I like outside article space and in my own life.  I am not able to engage in further discussion on this in the near future given that I don't have time or bandwidth to engage in an intellectual exploration of why a date format might be logical but look so odd as to be a distraction, or why that should or should not be an issue. The folks at the Teahouse are there precisely because they do have that bandwidth. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  17:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Indian English
Hey sorry for changing your Indian English to American English. Thanks for letting me know. I re-read the manual of style, wont happen again. OriginCV (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, OriginCV, I wouldn't say it's "mine" given that I'm from Nevada by way of Alabama and Virginia, but thanks for your cordial understanding! I admit that one of the most unexpected learning experiences I've had in four-ish active years on Wikipedia is gaining an appreciation of the proofreading challenges that emanate from India and neighboring countries, which have well over a dozen official and recognized languages (all of which are vigorously advocated for by their speakers) and nationally accepted English orthography that isn't completely concordant with either American or British English. There are words that come up a lot that were completely new to me (e.g. crore). Good luck and have fun! -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  18:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!
GABgab 20:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Apologies - Email Validation pages
Hi Julietdeltalima,

First - I want to apologize. I was making edits to the different email pages and did not see your notifications until I was done. At first, I thought there was a technical issue when I was submitting, as the links were disappearing about as fast as I was adding them. You are fast!

With that said, I appreciate that the links might appear to be promotional but that is not their intent. (Nor am I looking for any SEO advantages and understand none can be gained from Wiki). Simply put, I have been in the data validation space for almost 20 years and spend a lot of time researching and writing whitepapers around various data validation topics - specifically when it comes to contact records (name, address, phone, email, IP, etc). The White Paper I was linking to on the Email pages has strong content on the topic of email, email spamming and how malicious users use email to perpetrate fraud. It is also discusses how email validation works, how it can be used to prevent this type of fraud and how it can be used improve business practices. I respectfully request you reconsider allowing my edits to the External Links section. I am happy to provide a copy of the whitepaper, if that would be helpful. Also - if there is something specific that I am doing/can address, please let me know.

Sbvballer (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Answers
Hello. Thanks for your contributions. I answered to your messages on my talk page. 20:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanana Chessibendr (talk • contribs)

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)

Not Sure
I've used her personal twitter, LinkedIn, her employer's twitter & her firm profile as ref/sources for my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinumjah (talk • contribs) 17:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * , please read WP:RS. And you must provide citations, in the actual article (i.e. not in an edit summary).  Thanks. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  18:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI
I've filed an SPI case here for Wheee17/Do not distrub/Usuck19.  ceran  thor 19:15, 12 November 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)

Restoration of Chopsquad DJ page
Hello please I want to restore and edit the page how can I go about. It says I can’t edit for some following reasons Ziggy 2milli (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Remove YNW Melly article from article for deletion
Please I want to edit the page and I want it to be removed from article for deletion Ziggy 2milli (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Question Regarding Berkeley Free Clinic Page
Hello, You recently deleted my edits to the Berkeley Free Clinic page. Although some of your suggestions are regarding edits from other users, I went ahead and changed it myself anyways. For this page, I am wondering how the presentation of the Berkeley free clinic's history using several articles was considered less than neutral? I am by no means trying to advertise for this clinic, but I would like further clarification on how these articles that are describing the events as they occurred are biased? Thanks for the help! Alisha Soares (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I too noticed the edits and want to comment that I agree with the reversions. If you are close to the subject of the article, it may be difficult for you to understand that they have a promotional, non neutral tone. I suggest you read a useful essay Avoid mission statements. We should not be quoting a "former volunteer" for the claim that the clinic is "unique in its healthcare approach" and language like "empowering" coming from a former volunteer is promotional. We should instead be quoting recognized health care experts unconnected with this clinic for such assessments. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  01:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the useful feedback! The reason I added in those edits was in an effort to cite sources outside the subject's own website (as you can see there are many). However, most of the other outside sources are interviews/articles from volunteers. Would you have a suggestion on how to properly go about citing the history? I did include statements referencing the financial history of the organization, and was wondering if those would be considered biased? thanks! Alisha Soares (talk) 03:04, 20 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

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!
Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. 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 make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are, , and. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Small Engine Link
What I linked to is an article on small engines and not specific to any one engine company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.9.23.110 (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

+Are you following me around? 73.9.23.110 (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.9.23.110 (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

There are two commercial references on the page that don't seem to be a problem. I still don't quite understand what qualifies you to be editing this? 73.9.23.110 (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not going to respond to your last question, which is inappropriate. You have added links to a single author's outside works to a plethora of articles. This is viewed as reference-spamming, or external-link spamming in this case.  If you are that author, you should particularly not be doing this; please read WP:COI.  If a new editor is making inappropriate edits repeatedly, it is appropriate for other editors to examine all of those edits.  If you believe these articles are appropriately added as external links, please gain consensus on the articles' respective talk pages.  I am not going to respond further to you.  Please take any further issues to WP:TEAHOUSE if you have any further questions. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  21:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow. 73.9.23.110 (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

You don't seem to know anything about the actual value of the content itself.73.9.23.110 (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't have the time or patience to read all of your work here but you seem to have some serious issues.24.1.220.19 (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Philz Coffee Update
Hi Julietdeltalima!

Here is the updated information on Philz: https://www.philzcoffee.com/locations

Given that this was already cited in the same paragraph, I figured it was unnecessary to include it again. Would it be better if I updated it to include that information? Thank you Thomaspatrick1232 (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be better to wait until the location was actually open. Wikipedia isn't news and doesn't report on up-to-the-minute, frankly minor developments like this sourced only to the company's own website.  (We're not talking about Amazon moving into Crystal City here; a regional coffeeshop chain opening a store in a new market is not something the Wall Street Journal is jumping all over.) This content is really just not ripe for the encyclopedia; any number of things could happen between now and opening day to derail the opening, and this is why we have WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. (Thanks for your productive, polite question, by the way; it is much appreciated.) -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  19:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, that may be true. However the original page said there were 52 current shops open when there is only 51 shops currently open, I was trying to update it to reflect for accuracy. I understand why to not include the opening a new store, but should we still update it to 51 stores as they closed one of their locations in the East Bay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomaspatrick1232 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Mike Piazza A.C Reggiana 1919
Hello, this is the most accurate account of the Reggiana situation. The team was bankrupt 2010, 2005. The Piazzas announced the club was for sale after the Siena loss. The quote by Alicia has no affect on the facts.Flotz31 (talk)Flotz31 —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The current version is fine. "Devastating" was not an appropriate assertion for Wikipedia's voice. I thought the quotation from the girlfriend had been removed; that's my mistake.  Apart from some typographical cleanup that I'm about to do, I think your reworded change is fine.  (Please take any further article-related discussion to the article's talk page, though; it's not fair to other editors for this discussion to be happening on a random editor's page.) -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  19:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Please revert my infobox or explain
My blog is not for profit. The information can be verified. Its good independent information. There are no other independent sites that give this information to those who are interested. Please revert it so I don't have to challenge. If you have any suggestions to make it better I'm all ears. I hope you agree the information belongs there.Stevenvieczorek (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion policy
Hi, as a holder of the WP:NPR user right, you may wish to refresh on this deletion policy and its associated guideline. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

RFC link on hex_dump page
Hi. I just noticed you removed the RFC link from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hex_dump&diff=next&oldid=869827238

I have no opinion one way or the other to the links removal, but it was not nonexistent. RFC links are parsed automatically. This link went to: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4194

Cheers, Jamie Old Welsh Git (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The link was nonexistent, though. When I move my cursor over the language (I'm using IE, which I know is suboptimal but is certainly common), the pointer doesn't change from an arrow. Whether it automatically parses or not, how is a user supposed to click on it and get to the page (or, more precisely, how is that supposed to be effectuated in Wiki-markup)? Users can't be expected to cut and paste something into their search bar. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  19:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Normally, it's automatically converted into standard HTML by the wikimedia software, and as such is clickable in the normal way - no cutting or pasting or anything else. The HTML that the wiki software produces is:


 * RFC 4194 "The S Hexdump Format"


 * This is explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFCAUTO.


 * However, I just noticed that according to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_using_RFC_magic_links, the facilty has been deprecated for future software releases. Are you using beta wiki software that maybe has this change already enacted?


 * cheers Old Welsh Git (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Explain Conflict of Interest Concern
Hello, thank you for your comments on my talk page. I understand the confusion. I originally created the wikipedia account to write about production executives in Los Angeles, starting with members of Digital Riot Media. I choose the name with that in mind but quickly realized it represented something it wasn't. I am not profiting from my work. Let me know if there are any further questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harley747898 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

TurboTax Edits
Hello, Julietdeltalima. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page TurboTax, link to a website that requires registration in the form of a paywall. A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the website itself is the topic of the article. For more information on this, please see:
 * Guideline on external links — Preceding unsigned comment added by StayWokeFam (talk • contribs) 20:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The link was there before I was; I didn't add it. I don't know what the basis is for the notion that I have a "conflict of interest"; I have absolutely no personal or professional connection to tax preparation apart from simply being a taxpayer. Please take this discussion to Talk:TurboTax where it belongs. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  23:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

TurboTax Edits
Shalom,

Regarding the edits which you removed from the Turbotax page...

I am not trying to advertise for FreeTaxUSA, the link I posted was 3rd party, and mentioned them in conjunction with TurboTax. I'd be happy to find a different source if that's your concern.

Apart from that, FreeTaxUSA is a competitor of TurboTax. Just like any of the other companies listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StayWokeFam (talk • contribs) 20:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The source provided doesn't mention it; the NYT article cited only mentions two competitors. Sourcing is required, and if a company isn't notable enough to have its own article already, it shouldn't be listed. Wikipedia isn't a directory for every conceivable tax-filing-software company. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  20:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe there may be a conflict of interest in your efforts to prevent listing other tax companies under TurboTax, H&R Block, and all other Personal Tax Preparation Services.

Your second idea, that "wikipedia isn't a directory for every conceivable tax-filing-software company" flys in the face of what an encyclopedia is. Dictionary.com defines encyclopedia as, "a book, set of books, optical disc, mobile device, or online informational resource containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject." I'd like to draw your attention to the end of the definition, "covering all branches of knowledge, or all aspects of one subject".

As such, Wikipedia in in fact the ideal location to list as many tax-filing-softwares in existence. To provide unbiased information I will cite the IRS.

StayWokeFam (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not think you understand this. Please see WP:NOTDIRECTORY, discuss the addition on Talk:TurboTax, and, if you would like one, get a second opinion at WP:TEAHOUSE if you want to debate this issue further. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  23:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Question
Is IMDB not a credible source when editing someones page to update what movies they were invovled in?
 * No, as it's content is user generated and can't be verified. RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 21:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

then what can you use to verify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanel ev 21 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC) --- Coffee  and crumbs  11:43, 15 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)

Hiway March 2019: reply
Regarding your last message: "Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Hiway." It's my understanding that several startups like Getaround, Uber, Turo, among others, have their own "wikipedia articles" for information purposes.As you stated, "objective prose about beliefs, organizations, people, products or services is acceptable", so why in this case different? Hiway, as you mention has no formal connotation and so far it's only being used to redirect to Highway. Please advice what would be the correct way to proceed with the creation of the material I'd like to share here in Wikipedia.


 * Please see WP:AFC. Please understand that it is incorrect to call a Wikipedia article a "Wikipedia page." This isn't a social media platform; it is an encyclopedia that publishes articles on topics that meet encyclopedic definitions of notability. It is ABSOLUTELY not a place for a company to write about itself in the first person with language intended to flatter and promote itself.  I strongly urge you to ask the editors at WP:TEAHOUSE for a second opinion if you believe I am wrong.  Also please always sign your posts on talk pages with four tilde marks (which will trigger, as soon as you hit "Publish changes", the substitution of your username and the date and time; I had to look in page history to see who you were. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  16:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

SY edit
Is there something wrong with the edit? I placed the "citation needed" tag on the "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments ..." indication. Shouldn't statements on Wikipedia be sourced? 99.158.141.236 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Maintenance tags aren't article content requiring a reference in "References" and thus don't get "citation needed" tags, which are specifically intended to alert editors that references must be found for assertions made in the article itself. There is ample behavioral evidence on Sun Country Airlines for a conclusion that someone (singular or plural) with a vested interest in promoting the airline has been aggressively adding content that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia in an apparent attempt to burnish the image of the airline.  Please take this issue to Talk:Sun Country Airlines if you want to debate it further. I will not respond to anything further regarding a single article here on my personal talk page because discussion regarding a particular article should be kept with the article itself.


 * If you have further questions regarding Wikipedia procedure generally, please ask the editors at WP:TEAHOUSE because I have limited time the rest of the week.


 * Finally, I don't have any idea what "SY edit" means. If you're referring to a particular Wikipedia policy or guideline, please wikilink it; I am not finding a WP:SY relevant to this discussion, which has no discernible connection with Syria. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  16:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Why?
I think you make a mistake. I try to combat IP vandals. If you want to combat them on your own, I will leave the article altogether. I was just trying to help. Thank you. – Flix11 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It was a mistake and I just removed the warnings. My deepest apologies.  That article is under such a barrage right now I couldn't make heads or tails out of what was going on.  Thank you for your good work. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  16:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Lai (surname)
Hi, if you have time could you check recent edits to the above article. Thanks. Denisarona (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for appearing hostile
On Food addiction the way that I reverted your edit was a bit rash, because unawares is an uncommon word in my dialect. I'm not sure if there's protocol here because I'm not sure of the dialect split for the word. But you can revert my edit if you believe it's necessary. puggo (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter
The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, 🇺🇸 Ceranthor, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, and  Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
 * Pirate_Flag_of_Henry_Every.svg (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
 * Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18


Hello ,

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

MOS Compass re Cardstone
Cardstone is in Australia so the hyphenated form is acceptable as per MOS Compass. Kerry (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019


Hello ,

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

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

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

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter
The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * 🇳🇫 Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
 * Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
 * SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
 * 🇺🇸 Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Dim sum
I pitched in on cleaning up Dim Sum -- got rid of a pile of unnecessary bolding and italics. Turns out that process is real easy on visual editor. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 23:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

University of Birmingham accomodation
Hi JulietDeltaLima I hope this is in the right place to talk (sorry if not), I was just wandering about the detail I added as I felt it brought the information on the Mason accommodation inline with the existing information for the other accommodations in the Vale Village - something which I found helpful when looking for accommodation there myself. Can you let me know why you thought it wasn't needed when the same info is there for the other accommodations, likewise with the updated 2019 ValeFest headline act which just updated an existing part of the page. Thankyou for helping me, I just want to get to grips with Wikipedia and add things that are relevant, Phil Maxatta (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your question, Phil Maxatta. Wikipedia just isn't the place for that kind of information in the first place.  It's not a housing guide, it's not a noticeboard; please see WP:ISNOT and WP:OTHERSTUFF.  With millions of articles that are only edited by volunteers, we can't get to every college/university article to strip out minutiae about, e.g., which dorms have which kinds of rooms, and what bands played at what school events over the years. I am going to have very limited availability for the next few days so if you have any further questions, I strongly suggest that you ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE, where a number of volunteers are generally around to answer questions.  Thanks! -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  18:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Roll-on/roll-off
Hello there, could you please review Roll-on/roll-off page, and roll it back to a previous version? A detrimental contribution from Maksim-Smelchak has deteriorated the article quality. Thanks a lot. Traversos (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on MOS
Hi Juliet, I just wanted to thank you for pointing me towards the MOS regarding capitalization, you're right that all of these quirks can be a little daunting! I'm trying my best to learn the ropes and do things the right way (maybe a little too boldly sometimes, ha), so that was definitely helpful info. Is it all right if I restore the original edit I made to that article in the correct case? (Rationale being that "basic materials" are naturally occurring substances like unrefined minerals, stone, oil, etc., which would be an inaccurate industry label for a company in the advanced materials business, which deals with high tech/engineered materials--exactly the opposite). Thanks again for the help! Pinaepple10 (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinaepple10: Thank you for the thoughtful request! By all means, go ahead.  Take care. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  18:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. 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 MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you check an edit for me, please?
I'm not sure if this edit is vandalism, or not. I figured I should get a second opinion before I revert. Thanks in advance. 2601:644:877F:F6D8:BC56:10E7:849A:13E3 (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say it is not. Thanks. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  17:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. 2601:644:877F:F6D8:BC56:10E7:849A:13E3 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello ,

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Good
Hi Juliet,

Please let me know what else is needed for updating the term Good.

Thank you. BenYehooda (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Gambaro entries
Hi Juliet As a Wikipedia proficient in the Spanish language would appreciate it if you could add wiki data of Griselda Gambaro`s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_(1967_play) on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalist_Theatre`s list of productions and on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelique_Rockas `s list of performances. Editors have missed adding this premiere of Gambaro`s first English language performance in London. Thank you {LatinoWiki (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)}

PERFECTLY OK EDIT
I ADDED JAIDEN ANIMATIONS AT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayden WHY DID YOU REMOVE IT?? I TRIED TO MAKE IT FIT OK WHERE DID I WENT WRONG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.203.62 (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't belong there. Please don't shout. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  16:19, 22 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

"Embroidery"
Hello, I noticed you undid my edits to the article Embroidery. I felt this sentence regarding the use of a hand embroidery machine is inaccurate: "The machine used a combination of machine looms and teams of women embroidering the textiles by hand." I checked the cited reference and could not locate the inaccuracy in that document. In fact, looms are used to produce textiles not embroider them. I added a link to the hand embroidery machine article (already capitalized by another author). The use of the hand embroidery machine is documented there. I continued the thought process by adding well established history of embroidery machine development. The article links that I added include sources. Thanks for the correction re: the capitalization of Shiffli Embroidery Machine.

Riedener (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Susan -> Susie
Sorry for the mishap. There were 2 names in the original article. In the end, she's named Susan and I added links. Nucleos (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

SOAPBOX - change formulation of deleted passage?
Hello Julietdeltalima,

thank you for your edit on the Kaprun disaster. There was a section you deleted with reference to the SOAPBOX: "The book also includes information about a rather disturbing celebration which happened right after the discharge of all accused persons at a local inn in Salzburg, which is known to have been attended by several forensic experts who argued in favour of the Gletscherbahnen. Most disturbingly, the judge, Dr. Manfred Seiss, was invited to and attended the victory celebration, calling into question his impartiality in the matter." I guess that you are right about the wording. I still believe that this info is important. Is it ok for you to change the text so it sounds more factual? I would propose to use this formulation: "The book also includes information about a celebration which happened right after the discharge of all accused persons at a local inn in Salzburg, which is known to have been attended by several forensic experts who argued in favour of the Gletscherbahnen. The judge, Dr. Manfred Seiss, was invited to and attended the victory celebration, calling into question his impartiality in the matter."

Appreciate your help.

BR

--Salzburger Nockerl (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your helpful inquiry. I don't want to do this for you, but I'll ask you to please copy this question to the Kaprun disaster talk page before I answer you, because the discussion should be there (where anyone interested in the article can see it and respond to it) rather than here (where no one would probably ever think to look for it).


 * I'll tell you here that Gletscherbahnen, and any other names in the section I edited, shouldn't be in italics; company names aren't italicized in Wikipedia's style manual.


 * It may be a day or so before I'm able to comprehensively respond to you; real life is busy! Thanks again.  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  17:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * All right, thanks for the quick response; did as instructed. BR --Salzburger Nockerl (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you point me to more information?

 * ""thirty-second" is a compound modifier (referent: "promo shorts") and thus must be hyphenated"

I'm having difficulty understanding these.
 * "In the thirty second week of ..." s.b. "thirty-second" b/c it's an ordinal
 * "... offers seven unique seven-minute, thirty-second morning broadcasts that ..." is/isn't correct?
 * "... building up a thirty-second advantage at the end of the first ..." is/isn't correct?
 * "Non-subscribers are limited to a thirty-second sample." would have to be "thirty second", right?
 * "If a thirty-second countdown passes and ..." ??

It is hard to get straight off that there is no difference between:
 * "a series of thirty-second promo shorts"
 * "the thirty-second promo short"

The information I'm looking for is, well, by what rule(s) will I be able to judge *which* of my edits have been wrong, so as to know which to undo. Shenme (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Ack! I'll go look at MOS:HYPHEN, but again, some of these above look strange to me. Shenme (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * done. blech.
 * Again, how does one read "the thirty-second promo short" as opposed to "a thirty-second promo short"? The former seems quite ambiguous. How does one write "the promo short that was the 32nd in a series" vs. "the promo short that was 30 seconds in length"? The "thirty-second foo" looks the same as "thirty-second foo" (32nd / 32s) ? If the only way is to add words to disambiguate, blech! Shenme (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * One more, with reference to Rowen Fernández:
 * ... that his thirty second-minute equaliser against Sundowns was not ...
 * I had to use Google to get myself oriented. They are wanting to talk about an 'equaliser' kick within the Nth minute of a game. I find a range of usages externally:
 * But Ursell's thirty-second-minute equaliser was enough for a 1-1 draw
 * ... in the moments following Ian McInerney's sixty second minute equaliser on Sunday.
 * ... when he netted a second-minute equaliser after ...
 * ... an eighty-second minute equaliser to get Malmo back in the game.
 * I think #1 and #2 are wrong, #4 is correct, but don't know about #3.


 * As for the Rowen Fernández, correct would be (?)
 * ... that his thirty-second minute equaliser against Sundowns was not ...
 * (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I am responding on your talk page, Shenme. These are really good questions from someone whom I'm guessing has learned English as a second language, and I really appreciate and enjoy the opportunity to discuss this! I apologize for my late response; I have had a very busy couple of weeks in real life and haven't been able to take the time, in one sitting, to give you the comprehensive discussion you have invited (and I don't like to have an editing screen open for more than a few minutes at a time, to avoid edit conflicts). Thank you for your extremely thoughtful discussion! -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  18:09, 5 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

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)

Mistake?
I'm guessing this was a mistake? Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Josve05a Good grief, how did I manage that?! Indeed it was. Thanks for pointing it out! Oops! -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  22:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Since I used Huggle to revert the first edit, I did not really look in to who added the content in the first place, but then I saw a notification that you had reverted my reversion, so I immediately assumed that your account had been compromised. Good thing that it was just a mistaken misclick then, most likely. All good! Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I wonder...
... thank you for your addition to our humorous banter on 's talk page. It's funny how one name can conjure up an image of someone completely unrelated. But I'm quite happy to be thought of as a dapper 25 year old. (inside I still am, of course!) A few years back I published a book which took nearly 20 years to collate. I had to write a summary for the rear cover "about the author" - you know, the kind of thing that you want to avoid citing on Wikipedia because it was a bit one-side. It was only on the day that we needed to make a final decision about content and give the go ahead for publishing, and with absolutely no more changes then possible, that I decided it was a sufficiently serious and academic work that my last biographic sentence really ought not to go in. Bear in mind I was in my mid 50s, it simply said "And he still doesn't know what he wants to do when he grows up." I might save it for my epitaph, instead.

By the way, I wonder: would it sound terribly rude of me if I asked you if you wouldn't mind removing your comment from the bottom of that thread on Cullen's page? The simple reason for asking is that, as it stands, the rest of it came across as quite a rounded bit of humorous exchange between two editors, aptly finish off by a third curtly telling us we're 'grumpy old men' (probably true!). I don't know if it will fit with their humour section, but I've just linked the editor of The Signpost to it as a nice lighthearted bit of stuff. I doubt he'll/she'll use it - and I know it sounds rude of me to suggest that you've ruined it (you haven't) - but I tend to think it looks more 'complete' without your final addition to it. I wonder what you think? Many thanks for both of your comments, and for considering this request. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a problem! Take care. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  16:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)