User talk:Mccapra/Archive 17

Request help for 'Swaraj India' page
I have worked on the Swaraj India page and have reinforced more verified info and added citations. Kindly help review if the notability maintenance template may be removed. Or else, kindly suggest what further action I can take. Thanks a lot. David Davidindia (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks I’ve taken the template off based on the additional sources. However I note that seven years after its foundation the party still hasn’t won any seats, so another editor may come along and add the tag again at some point. Mccapra (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. I will try to add more info about their Farmers activity and elections with reliable sources. Thanks Davidindia (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Copypaste tag on John Ovington
Hi, I'm not sure if you still remember, but around 2 years ago you added a copypaste tag to this page. I'm trying to resolve it, but there doesn't seem to be any copyvios, per John Ovington | Earwig's Copyvio Detector (copyvios.toolforge.org). If you still remember, could you confirm if the tag is correct? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * hi I’ve taken the tag off now as I reran the copyvio tool and there doesn’t seem any basis for keeping it. Mccapra (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Palazzo Francesco Maria Balbi Piovera
Mccapra Hi, thanks for the tip, look I added the text in the edit article is that correct?Товболатов (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * yes that’s exactly right. For future articles please put that into your first edit summary so that it appears first and is easy for other editors to see. All the best Mccapra (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, I will.--Товболатов (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Palazzo Interiano Pallavicini, Palazzo Balbi Piovera Raggio Mccapra hi, thanks, check out those two pages too.--Товболатов (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * both now marked as reviewed and released for search engine indexing. Great work! Mccapra (talk) 10:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Palazzo Lomellini-Doria Lamba Hi, Mccapra you seem to have checked this page, however there are no new views.--Товболатов (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * hi when I search on Google I can see it has been indexed and comes up so all is well. It’s a fairly niche topic so it may take a while before other internet users find their way to it. Mccapra (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * All right, thank you.--Товболатов (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Mccapra Hi, isn't 7 footnotes enough Palazzo Costaguti. I have seen many articles with 1 footnote and there were no templates to add footnotes. The articles were labelled with the start. There's one here for example, I've seen about 15-20 pages of them. Palazzo Roverella, Ferrara. But are these old articles or is there a change in the rules now. --Товболатов (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * hi it’s the lack of inline references that the template indicates. Yes standards have increased since some of our older articles were written. Mccapra (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Mccapra Hi, sorry to bother you. I was wondering if I could translate an article on Finestra inginocchiata. How should it be called in English Kneeling windows or the Italian original name Finestra inginocchiata? --Товболатов (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi I suggest you use the English term “kneeling window” but also create a redirect to it from the Italian term. If you’re not sure how to create a redirect just go ahead and do the translation and I’ll add the redirect later. Mccapra (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it, okay, we'll do that. Kneeling windows --Товболатов (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * and I’ve added a redirect from the Italian term so whichever one the reader uses they”ll end up at your article. Mccapra (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i guess the article hasn't been checked yet.--Товболатов (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, what's up, check out this article, it's not showing in the list of articles I've created. Palazzo Donati (gia Benzoni, Bernardi, Vailati)--Товболатов (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes there are >11,000 new articles in the queue for review. Sometimes it takes a while for reviewers to get to them. Mccapra (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter
Hello ,

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page 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) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Request
Could you keep an eye on User:Кронас? He is unexperienced. He has no information on his user page and there is no discussion on his talk page. On 7 October he began to delete references at many articles/lemmas. In my point one cannot delete (precious) references without discussion on the talk page. I don't trust this guy. Please let me know what you think. Maybe the references should be put back? Regards.Taksen (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * hi thanks for your message. I think you should contact an admin about this as it sounds serious. I’d suggest Rosguill or Barkeep49 but I’m sure any admin would want to check it. Mccapra (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I answered a similar question. Links to Russian-language non-authoritative sites, articles to which are submitted for payment, have been removed. Similar cleaning is carried out in ru-wiki. Кронас (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Your articles
Hi there, Mccapra, and thank you for creating such interesting articles, many of historical interest with extensive coverage. I noticed that quite a few had not been assessed and that some of those assessed had substantially improved. You can see their current status here. Quite an impressive result. Thanks too for your involvement in new page reviewing. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, much appreciated. I hadn’t seen that scoreboard before. I am taking a break from new page reviewing but will come back to it! All the best. Mccapra (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Bio's lead, concerning birth/death dates & places
Howdy. It's preferred to have places listed after birth/death dates, in bio pages. GoodDay (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * hi I don’t see that in WP:MOS though I don’t have an objection to date before place. I do have an objection to inserting “in” which is definitely not standard. Mccapra (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you wish, we can open a discussion at the appropriate MOS & get input from others. I've come across thousands of bios, that use "Date in Place" style. GoodDay (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I’d rather spend my time doing something more interesting. Mccapra (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Julian Godlewski
Hi, I'd appreciate if you could help me in de-orphaning the article. Despite reading tips, I can't do it myself. Never tried it either. Regards - Oleo (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * done. Mccapra (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Infobox
Hello Mccapra, in arabic wikipedia when we put the right infobox on the way all information in wikidata appear automatically in the page is it different in english wikipedia? or i didn't put the right infobox in my first page?. thanks in advance. بافلي مجدي (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * there was a big argument about that a few years ago and the result was no automated filling of data from wikidata. A lot of editors felt wikidata was not reliable and as a result we still do all our infoboxes by hand. Mccapra (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ohhh okay, i hope you solve it really quick :) cause it helps us in arabic wikipedia and if there is wrong inf in wikidata we solve it in wikidata but now i get it here. thanks. بافلي مجدي (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

 * thank you and best wishes to you too! I hope 2024 brings you happiness and good luck. Mccapra (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Article Muhammad Naji Al-Mahlawi
Hello, @Mccapra first Merry Christmas,

Second, Can we now remove this tag (citation style) after i add the sources. thanks in advance بافلي مجدي (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you and best wishes to you too. Thanks for tidying the citations. I have de orphaned the article too so I’ve taken both take off. All the best Mccapra (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. بافلي مجدي (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Draftifications
Hello, Mccapra,

When you draftify all of an editor's work, as you did to Emilioveh, it would be great if you left a personal explanation and not just post a load of template messages. They are left with a lot of questions. I suggested that they come here for more information. Liz Read! Talk! 08:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Issue about moving all the recent pages to draft space
I've seen that you moved all the pages I recently created to draft place for no reason, you say that it's because the sources don't prove the information in the article which is totally incorrect, all the sources provided prove the information, I read them myself. If you think I'm doing it wrong, at least tell me how can I search someone experienced on the topic to make them because no one is going to do it if isn't for me. Emilioveh (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * hi I have looked at the sources you provided in each article. For the articles I have sent to draft you have provided a number of Google books references. Many of these that I have checked show a ‘zero result’, meaning that you looked in that book for your search term, found nothing, but added it in as a reference anyway. Of the links that do produce a result, none of the results actually supports what you’ve written in the article. They are either to completely unrelated points or passing mentions that don’t support the specific point you are referencing in your article. Every time I click on one of your reference links I should find a piece of text in a Google book that supports exactly what you have said in the article you wrote. Nothing else is good enough. Mccapra (talk) 08:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually untrue, all the books have their own spaces on the books provided
 * Emilioveh (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant all the topics have their own spaces on the books provided Emilioveh (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well maybe they do, but not through the links you’ve provided in the articles. Can you explain why for example the first reference in Nicaraguan-Salvadoran War which is to a book called Curso de historia de la América Central para uso de los institutos y escuelas normales brings up a Google book search page showing your search string and saying “no results”? Mccapra (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * On Page 215 there's a section about the war exactly
 * Emilioveh (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ok but that isn’t what you have linked to. Mccapra (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But I linked to the book, how should I do it then. Emilioveh (talk) 09:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thats hard for me to say because I’m not clear what method you are following. But any time a reader clicks a reference link they should be taken to exactly the text in that reference that supports the information in the article. Mccapra (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I linked to the page it says the information Emilioveh (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Mccapra!


Happy New Year! Mccapra, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * Thank you very much and best wishes to you too for 2024! Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Two articles for the same person
Hello i noticed there are 2 articles for the same perosn with the same date of birth i guss one of them should be deleted.

The two articles: Bacent Osman and Bacent Othman. بافلي مجدي (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks for spotting that. I have merged the content and redirected the newer article to the older. Mccapra (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my article!
I'm quite new to Wikipedia editing, and recently found out about the new article reviewing. I see that only very experienced people can do it, and that it is a lot of work (there's so many of them!). So thanks for reviewing History of College Park, Maryland.

By the way, how are the articles chosen for review? I created an article on Monday that got reviewed in the same day, while College Park City Hall has been unreviewed for a while. Perhaps it is because I started it in my sandbox and then moved it to Main?

So much to learn :o)

Blacktupelo (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC) 
 * hi thanks for your message. Reviewers look at the list of newly created articles here and just pick whichever ones they want to review. We dip in and out so what gets reviewed depends on who is reviewing, what else is in the queue, and how easy or hard it appears to assess. There is no particular logic or system to it and some new articles can wait several months till they’re reviewed. Mccapra (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, that's good to know! Blacktupelo (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Dewair (1582)
Hello! I've just come to this page to replace the stub with more specific one (stub sorting stuff). But then I looked at the page history and noticed that you removed the redirect on this page which was decided here: Articles for deletion/Battle of Dewair (1582). Just wanted to notify you in case you missed it.  Delta  space 42 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks I did notice it, right at the end after I’d redirected the new article to the old title. I suppose the lesson is to check the talk page before performing this kind of manoeuvre. I didn’t undo my own moves because my search for sources (I am an extreme sceptic about new Indian battle articles) indicated that there are sources and the article could easily be expanded so I decided to leave it. I presumed the new article was a good faith attempt to create content that stood a reasonable chance of being kept at AfD. However if you disagree and feel that the consensus from the 2021 AfD should still prevail I won’t object if you decide to undo my moves. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for moving the Utah War Peace Commission. That was my original plan — for readers to click on the Utah War Peace Commission link in the infobox and be redirected seamlessly. Unfortunately, I don't know how to create redirects to specific chapters of articles. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC) it’s easy! You write #REDIRECT as normal. Then the wiki link follows the formula Article title, I.e. you use # to separate the article title from the section header. All the best Mccapra (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

NPP Awards for 2023

 * Thank you very much! Mccapra (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

RE:Valozhyn-Tarasovo Death Road
Hi! Thank you for your message. Actually, the refs you've mentioned apply to the last position in the biography: Zbrodnicza ewakuacja więzień i aresztów NKWD na Kresach Wschodnich II Rzeczypospolitej w czerwcu – lipcu 1941 roku, which translated title is: Criminal evacuation of NKVD prisons and detention centers in the Eastern Borderlands of the Second Polish Republic in June-July 1941. However, if some more clarity is required, I am open on every suggestions. For example, I could "split" this book to highlight the particular chapters, as in the article NKVD prisoner massacre in Zolochiv. Cheers.Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * hi thanks for your note. I guessed that couldn’t be the relevant source because the bibliography entry says 10 June 1996 while the short ref says 1997. If 1996 is the right date could you correct the short ref please? Mccapra (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we need to separate two issues here. This source is a kind of conference proceedings. While the scientific conference indeed took place in Łódź in 1996, the papers were published in a form of book only a year later. Also, when you check its ISBN in WorldCat or other simmilar database, the date of publication is 1997. Cheers.Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies I’ve realised it’s just me being stupid. The 1997 publication date is right there and I somehow managed not to see it. Sorry to bother you. Mccapra (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Lawrence D. Eicher Award
Hello @Mccapra Do you think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_D._Eicher_Award page should be merged with ISO main page and added as a section? Regards 80.13.110.30 (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * hi I think the current article is much too detailed and looks like it is just copied off a website. What independent third party coverage does the award or its winners have? It seems to be mainly of internal interest within the ISO community. For that reason I think the existing material in the ISO article can be expanded, but a couple of sentences is probably enough. Mccapra (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

First Battle of Yedaya
Hello, I added multiple secondary sources to my article I still dont understand what you meant, could you help me improve whatever you deemed imperfect ?

First Battle of Yedaya Yubudirsi (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * hi thanks for your message. Wikipedia articles require sources that cover a subject in depth, ie. There should be paragraphs or pages of material about it in several books, or scholarly articles written about it. The fact that an event is briefly mentioned in a source - as is the case with this battle - does not provide a basis for creating an article. The battle could be mentioned in the articles about the leaders involved, or in a timeline article, but to have a stand alone article much more detailed treatment in the sources is required. Mccapra (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well not in this case, you see the primary source also mentions it that briefly, altough it being an important impactful battle in the HOA history Al makrizi is only able to tell us the location, belligerents and outcome most of the time, I don't how we could say more on this topic or make paragraphs Yubudirsi (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree and that’s exactly the point really. If there isn’t much to be said in detail about the battle then what we know about it should be included in other articles in a sentence or two rather than a stand alone article. Everything doesn’t have to have its own article. Mccapra (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If I understood you well, you're telling me I can't make articles for 80% of Adalite history ? Yubudirsi (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * By all means you can make articles, but not about individual battles if that’s the level of coverage we have in the sources. You could do articles about a chronological periods, or about extended wars that provide details of the battles without creating an individual article for each one of them. Or you could add details of the battles into existing articles. Mccapra (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So does that mean all the Battles I put in wikipedia are all gonna get deleted ? Yubudirsi (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It depends on the level of sourcing that supports each one. Mccapra (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Are 3 secondary sources enough ? Sorry if I'm asking lots of questions Yubudirsi (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

don’t worry that’s fine. The question isn’t really how many sources mention the event, but what they say about it. For example, take Julius Caesar’s battles in Gaul. We know about them in some detail because he described them himself. They are also discussed and described by two or three Roman historians so we know details of the ground, the formations, the tactics and the mistakes. We can add into that generations of historians who have discussed the battles, debating whether Caesar was exaggerating, and what their significance was. In some cases we also have archaeological evidence to bring in. All of that means we have enough of a detailed picture of each battle to write an article about it. In contrast take a look at the battles Infobox in List of battles of the Second Punic War and you’ll see lots of redlinks. Why? Because we know there was a battle in that place, but we just don’t know enough about it to create a standalone article. What we can’t do is just go through the chronicles and create an article for every event in a conflict just because it’s mentioned in passing. My suggestion to you is that instead of trying to write an article about every battle, you write something similar to List of battles of the Second Punic War, combining information about multiple battles in a single article. Mccapra (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Dhananjaya Das Kathiababa
I hope you do not mind but I have added the previous AFDs for this article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhananjaya Das Kathiababa. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Please remove discriminatory nomination for deletion
Please remove the nomination for deletion for Timothy K. Blauvelt. Having 400+ citations is a lot, as there are not many scholars working on these issues. It is, sorry, totally inappropriate to remove scholarship simply because not so many people are in the field & it is underfunded. Moreover, there are multiple peer reviewed publications. I really find this nomination borders on vandalism. Hundnase (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see that you have made this point in the deletion discussion. I’m happy to wait for the outcome of the community review on this. Mccapra (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks for your response -- it seems that some scammers used the AfD discussion, so those are separate things. Sorry I got that mixed up. If I can just highlight again that for this region here, 400 citations is a lot! So I feel this should be taken into account. As for my CoI, I know the person as a colleague for many years, have started various articles about academics in the region, and have in general tried to advance the use of Wikipedia in Georgia, see here . Hence pls understand that it can be a bit dispiriting if one needs to struggle to keep articles. It seems that consensus is forming for a keep. Hundnase (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Glow Up: Britain's Next Make-Up Star (series 4)
Hello, Mccapra,

This article had already been draftified months ago so it was not appropriate to draftify it again. See WP:DRAFTOBJECT for guidance. Articles should not be draftified more than once so please remember to check the page history before doing this type of article page move. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Harry W. Hunt
You tagged Harry W. Hunt with a note which requests showing the "notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention."

There are a total of seven sources cited from reliable secondary sources (the Golbe and Mail and Toronto Star newspapers) all of which provide significant coverage rather than a trival mention, as demonstrated by the headlines of the articles, as follows:
 * Harry Hunt: Ex-alderman owned tavern The Globe and Mail (1936-); Toronto, Ont.. 15 June 1966: 45.
 * Harry Hunt to Run For Mayor on Plan Of City Leadership: Three-Cornered Fight Indicated-- Platform to Be Announced Friday The Globe (1844-1936); Toronto, Ont.. 17 Dec 1935: 11.
 * The Globe Recommends Hunt for Mayor, Robbins Thompson Miller.  The Globe (1844-1936); Toronto, Ont.. 26 Dec 1935: 1.
 * Extremist Victory Would Be Tragedy, Hunt Warns Voters: Mayoralty Candidate Makes Final Appeal for Continuance of "Sane, Sound Administration" ISSUE AT STAKE IS EMPHASIZED The Globe (1844-1936); Toronto, Ont.. 01 Jan 1935: 4
 * Harry Hunt to Run For Mayor on Plan Of City Leadership: Three-Cornered Fight Indicated-- Platform to Be Announced Friday The Globe (1844-1936); Toronto, Ont.. 17 Dec 1935: 11.
 * Hunt Statement, The Globe (1844-1936); Toronto, Ont.. 02 Jan 1936: 1.
 * "Harry W. Hunt, ex-alderman, leaves $521,165", Toronto Daily Star (1900-1971); Toronto, Ontario. 25 Aug 1966: C3.

Accordingly, the notability requirement has been fulfilled. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * hi thanks for your note but I don’t think it’s clear-cut. The subject is an unsuccessful candidate for mayor and the coverage is essentially local. Mccapra (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Toronto was at the time the second-largest city in Canada and the newspapers are not "local newspapers" as such but are both considered national newspapers in Canada. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you
Mccapra Thank you for your review of my article on Anton Franzen and for your informative note. I now have added an edit summary to the article as requested, indicating that there was a partial translation from the German wiki article. I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to review the note to see that it is sufficient to give full attribution to the prior article. I usually try to paraphrase when using material from other articles and, if copying, am sure to include any applicable inline references. In future, I will include the translation edit summary also. Thanks again for your assistance and guidance. Historybuff0105 (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Bernard Whiteside
Thank you for your attention to my article. I have added the additional credible source in support of this page. Qigong4wellness (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * one of the effects of lockdown is I’ve lost my sense of the passage of time. If you told me it was seven years or two years I’d believe you. But best wishes to you in our anniversary and thank you for remembering. Mccapra (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ricci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Giovanni Ricci.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

About your review of Upcoming Porter Robinson album
Hey Mccapra, I noticed that you marked this redirect as reviewed after I had tagged it for CSD R2 deletion. I would not recommend doing this, and it's not endorsed by the new page patrol guidelines either. Most of the time, of course, a page tagged for speedy deletion will be deleted by an administrator soon after, so marking it as reviewed wouldn't do much. However, if the tag is contested, this will result in the page staying in mainspace, but bypassing the review. This potential for abuse is mitigated by leaving pages with CSD tags (and PROD tags, for that matter) in the queue. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * hi the article was redirected to draft, not sent to speedy deletion. Mccapra (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As I understand it marking such a redirect as reviewed simply takes it out of the queue. If the article is moved from draft space back into mainspace it reappears in the NPP queue regardless of whether the original redirect to draft was marked as reviewed or not. Or have I got that completely wrong? Mccapra (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I draftified the article, which left behind a redirect in mainspace due to the page move. That redirect was then tagged for speedy deletion as it's cross-namespace. The reason that marking that redirect as reviewed is problematic is because if I or another editor were to contest that speedy deletion and, for example, change the target of the redirect or even start another article from it, that page would not get a proper review since it had been removed from the new pages feed, and probably won't get seen by an administrator either since it's no longer in the speedy deletion tracking categories. I wouldn't ever game the system like that, but it is a loophole in the system that abusive users can exploit. In general, it is not appropriate to mark any page as reviewed if it has CSD tags on it. Either an administrator deletes it, or the tags are contested and NPP will review the page as usual. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah ok thanks for explaining Mccapra (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Adulf mcEtulfe hoax?
Why have you listed my article as a hoax? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Because I can’t find any sources supporting it and it contradicts sourced articles on the topic we already have. Mccapra (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What sourced articles do we already have that it contradicts? I did not intend to put false information on Wikipedia, if I have then I apologise. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * apologies my misreading. I’ll remove the tag. Mccapra (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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)