User talk:Loriendrew

For NewsLetters and Subscriptions click here

Think

Think before you write.

If you want to talk with me, follow these simple rules:


 * Make sure I can understand the message you are trying to convey
 * Please link back to the article to which you are referring
 * English only please, my native tongue of "New Yorker" was forcibly removed by NYC Dept of Ed speech therapists
 * In the words of Winston Churchill: "short words are best, and the old words, when short, are best of all"

'''To start a new conversation create a new section at the end of the page, easily done by clicking "New section" along the top menu. Putting something in the middle will not be seen.'''

Seminole Heights Page
Hello. My edits were completely constructive and factual. They provide a source that the "official seal" of Seminole Heights is a hoax. It also provides the original source the false seal claims to have come from—the 1912 Hillsborough High School Yearbook. I have access to the yearbook and this false seal does not appear anywhere in it's pages, and the faked seal doesn't even have the company name correct. Please cease reverting my changes as they are valid and sourced. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4thgenTPA (talk • contribs)

Seminole Heights
When the source claims an image as proof that a seal existed in a year book, the only source that can refute that is an image of the original, unaltered source. What other source would you like me to provide? Certainly any other source would be second hand in this case. This isn't an image that disproves another image as factual, it's not being provided as a source to make a claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4thgenTPA (talk • contribs)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022
Hello , Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to ), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also. Software news: and  have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved. Suggestions:
 * There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
 * Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
 * Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
 * This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog: Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!


 * Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023
Hello , The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day. won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!
 * Backlog
 * 2022 Awards

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from  to  '''

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as and  have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.


 * Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023
Hello , Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by  and  with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of, and also some patches from , has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and on IRC.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello ,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me!!
Hello. I'm SolshineBenie and i'm going to tell the question is to why you revert my edit that is supposed to be unchanged and untouched? SolshineBenie (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edit contained multiple significant errors. The correct article/link is COVID–19 pandemic, "Cornavirus pandemic" is a redirect to that article. You had a misspelling. Additionally, you changed the title of a published article, so it was reverted back to the correct title.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  02:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Im sorry. But to me the name Coronavirus seems to be a correct name for a disease instead of this? Bye fir now. SolshineBenie (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

Synesthesia category
Hi. You reverted my category edit of Georg Anschütz since "Category is about topic, not a place for people with synesthesia", but Georg Anschütz is not a person with synesthesia but a researcher of synesthesia, as mentioned in the article. The Category:Synesthesia currently includes researchers of synesthesia such as Richard Cytowic and Joel Salinas. Furthermore, the current synesthesia category also includes Tilden Daken, a person with synesthesia. Are you sure this category should not include people with synesthesia? If so, would you please explain the reason? --saebou (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The best place for that would be at Category:People with synesthesia. Unfortunately, that has been twice deleted, most recently via this deletion discussion. Start by having a look at WP:DISABILITYCAT.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  00:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that Georg Anschütz can be added to Category:Synesthesia because he is a researcher? Furthermore, the other two people I added to the category, Patricia Lynne Duffy (author of Blue Cats and Chartreuse Kittens: How Synesthetes Color Their Worlds) and Daniel Tammet (author of Born on a Blue Day), both wrote well-known books about synaesthesia.　The guideline you showed says that you cannot add people to the category "unless that condition is considered WP:DEFINING for that individual", and synesthesia is central to these two writers' writings. Synesthesia could be regarded as Defining to these people, and if the category is about the topic, I think famous authors of the books on the topic should be included in the category. --saebou (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, the first two. Tammet's article shows synesthesia studies of him, not by him, and the book seems like a singular memoir–type whereas Duffy has a defined career incorporating synesthesia.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  21:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Igor Sikorsky
Hi! I would like to point out that your removal of my edit in Igor Sikorsky contradicts both Write the article first and Red link. According to Wikipedia:Write the article first editors are encouraged to write the article first before adding it to a list, template or disambiguation page. Igor Sikorsky is a bio that does not fall into any of these categories. In turn, Wikipedia:Red link even encourages the creation of this type of links, explicitly stating that red links help Wikipedia grow. Moreover, it also indicates that red links can be created to biographies of people who would likely meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Ivan Sikorsky, described in six language editions of Wikipedia, certainly meets this requirement. Also note that Igor Sikorsky contains more links to non-existent articles, e.g. Sikorsky Avion Atlas or Sikorsky H-2. Therefore, I'm going to revert to my previous edit. Best wishes, Teukros (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not vandalise articles
It's FIVE times. . 197.87.135.139 (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You may be misunderstanding the term "vandalism" as you failed to support your change with a reliable source. The existing source only supports 4x.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  21:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

First
It seems you don't understand about the usage of names (for example family members). Yet you think you do. Delectable1 (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * See the Rhiannon Giddens article which you also edited. Note the usage of first names for her parents IN the article. Delectable1 (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A more surgical revision of your edits have been made. Your undoing reintroduced the same spelling and styling errors, which you acknowledged in the edit summary, yet made no effort to repair. As for the usage of names, please look at MOS:SURNAME and MOS:SAMESURNAME for future guidance in your editing of in–article names.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  22:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
Please refrain from removing content without adequately explaining why, as you did at 2006. Continued unexplained content removal may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ItsCheck the 2nd (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Moving this discussion to your talk page where your edit warring behavior has already been discussed.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  13:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

ANI notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Removal of content without adequate explanation, edit war, and personal attacks. Thank you. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)