User talk:MaxnaCarta/Archive 3

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, MaxnaCarta. Thank you for your work on Tim Watson-Munro. User:Onel5969, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

 Onel 5969  TT me 12:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks @Onel5969!! Both for the feedback and your reviewing. What I lost most about Wikipedia is that it’s just so fun learning how to write better articles as I get more experienced so I am so grateful an experienced reviewer like you is noticing. Have a great week! MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Sex Worker Murders
Hello, MaxnaCarta. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sex Worker Murders, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Ponniyin Selvan: II
There is a crisis at Ponniyin Selvan: II (a released film) and that can only be resolved when one completes the AfC reviewing of this draft. Could you quickly do it please? Or recommend someone else? Kailash29792 (talk)  13:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Kailash29792 hey there, someone has reviewed already at AFC, I did mark the article as patrolled though. Nice work MaxnaCarta (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but the draft is awaiting re-review after declined it two months ago. Kailash29792  (talk)  05:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for BP Refinery v Tracey
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Murder of Vivianne Ruiz (Jane Doe)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Murder of Vivianne Ruiz (Jane Doe) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Caeciliusinhorto thank you! By the way, if you want me to email you a copy of the journal article used for much of the entry please let me know MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Fay article? Yes please! I've had a look and I don't seem to have access to it through any of my institutions. You should be able to email me Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Caeciliusinhorto nah it’s not accessible through the normal ways. I had to purchase it. Will send. It’s essential really given how many citations I made to it through the article  MaxnaCarta (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Caeciliusinhorto all done. By the way, I am determined to work through any issues. If you find things to improve, I am happy to spend even more than the usual 7 day holding period to work through them. Please do let me know once you have reviewed. No rush at all. Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Tropical Snow
Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Chicago CRED
Hello, MaxnaCarta,

It was a mistake for you to close this discussion less than 24 hours after it was opened. And it wasn't a SNOW as there were significant questions about the sources available and the Keep rationales were brief and not very complete. Please do not be in a hurry to close a discussion that is in progress as this one was. In fact, your closure may very well be reverted if the nominator lodges a complaint. Deletion discussions should run at least 7 days unless there is a pressing reason to close them early and, in this case, there wasn't. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Liz no worries at all. Thank you for the feedback I enjoy clerking at AFD as well as participating. I am always happy to undo a non-admin closure when asked, and I appreciate you letting me know. I have already undone the closure. I will never argue with any admin who asks me to undo a closure. If you ever see me make a mistake, please do feel free to just revert my action. However, regardless of participation I do not think I am going to be making any such early closures again because they do seem to rub people up the wrong way and that is not what I want. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tamzin -- Tamzin (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

SNOW closure at CRED
Hi MaxnaCarta,

I'm sorry but this is not when SNOW argument can be used. SNOW can be argued when the matter is so obvious that there's not a slightest chance of another outcome. This was definitely not the case with this particular AfD – as you can see, sourcing was still being debated, length of media coverage was also up for a debate. Participation was still scant. Additionally, your statement implying that admin votes would somehow have more weight is incorrect – in deletion discussions, admin !votes have exactly the same weight as any other editor's, because it's the weight of arguments that matters, not account capabilities.

All in all, I'd ask you to revert your close, reopen the discussion and let it run its course. Please also never weigh admin !votes over other editors' at AfD. Thank you. — kashmīrī  TALK  01:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Kashmiri done, and just to be clear, I did not hold an administrator is view in high regard than that of another editor. I only included that detail because I felt that given two administrators had voted keep it meant that a procedural early close, might possibly hold more appropriate. I do not weigh their arguments for keep any higher than another editor, as I know that all editors are equal at AFD.
 * I have undone the closure using my mobile phone as a priority. Later tonight when I am back at my desk top, I will go back over directly to the article and reinstate the AFD template. More than happy for you to reinstate this also thank you — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you, and sorry if I sounded a tad aggressive. It's quite possible that the article will ultimately be kept, but there are issues that need clarifying (like the very short period of media coverage or lack of compliance with WP:NONPROFIT) and I'd prefer to have them discussed at AfD. Cheers, — kashmīrī  TALK  02:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You weren’t aggressive at all @Kashmiri. If I am going to try my hand at a close, an editor may always challenge it, especially as an NAC. Even though I don’t think it was a tragic close, it was overall a misstep to close something that early. Cheers and keep it up. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Fifty Vinc | Maintenance-tag | COI & Undisclosed Paid
Hi @MaxnaCarta, can I ask why you added these tags to the draft? I am not a paid writer, nor do I have a close connection with the subject. I simply think, that Fifty Vinc is a notable person! That's it. And yeah, I am a bit pushy, that may be, but I try to write a good article and also try to show that the subject meet the criteria. It would be nice if you could please remove the tag, thanks. Matthew Tailor (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Matthew Tailor i suspect these based on my experience as an AFC reviewer. If you want then removed please visit the AFC help desk. If any other AFC reviewer wants to remove them, they can. Refer them to this comment. My decisions on that draft stand but other reviewers are able to act differently. I do not have anything further to add with that draft. Thank you. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for copyediting the Holocaust article.

(t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC) 


 * A pleasure @Buidhe, such an important, sad, but brilliant piece of work. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Tim Watson-Munro
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Jack4576
Thank you so much for your skilled, positive intervention. Fingers crossed that Australian law gets a good editor back next month. — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks @A. B.. I don’t blame those supporting a block now for doing so. I haven’t been participating in the discussions which he has obviously made frustrating for those involved. It’s been some weeks and I am really disappointed he didn’t stop. So many gaffes in a short period. However if someone has been a constructive editor previously, we should give them a red line to cross before an indefinite block. Hopefully this brings the matter to an end and assuage concerns without losing his constructive efforts for good. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Companion rule (Australian Criminal law)
Please take a look at this. You are better qualified to judge the merits of this AfD than I am. We need your Antipodean legal expertise. — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I’ll have to look at this closer. I avoided it initially because the nominator was accused of misconduct without evidence and I didn’t want to get involved in a back and forth with Jack over it. This is probably a delete due to topic duplication. I’ll have a look. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Murder of Vivianne Ruiz
The article Murder of Vivianne Ruiz you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Murder of Vivianne Ruiz and Talk:Murder of Vivianne Ruiz/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

May 2023 GOCE drive award

 * @Dhtwiki thank you for your efforts in coordinating the drive and handing out barn stars. Much appreciated. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

May 2023 NPP Drive Awards

 * Thank you for your efforts @MPGuy2824 — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

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.