User talk:Mcmatter/Archive 9

Thanks
for putting in the effort to teach! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * No problem, sometimes I like to put my career skills to use ;) McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Polling in Scotland for next UK General Election
Thank you for your comments I am glad that we seem to be making progress and that you now appear to be accepting that direct data from the polling companies is in fact a reliable source and not uncommon practice I agree Twitter is not a reliable source and will rectify that, by way of explanation it is common in these articles to use Twitter/newspaper as holding point till data is released (this one obviously slipped by) I will update and edit article later this evening Soosider3 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Soosider3 I was never doubting the sources just the fact it was improperly sourced and not all of it was sourced. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

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 The former script is no longer maintained.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 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 Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

IDN_Times article publishing
Regarding this article, I took reference from Wikipedia Indonesia (https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDN_Times) which discusses the same topic. Can it be published or what are the requirements if you want to write the same article in English Khafidah (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: ZTimes
Hello Mcmatter, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of ZTimes, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ivanvector I'm curious which claim of significance or importance you saw that I missed? McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, any link to third party coverage is a credible claim of significance, and this article had five of them. The only one that I can read suggests that the company is significant for its use of Web3 and blockchain to produce games, and for being a brand of what it calls the "largest gaming company". It definitely needs work and better sources to establish notability and relevance, but a claim of significance is a much lower bar. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ivanvector, do you mean the 5 reprints of the announcement press release? I wouldn't count those as third party coverage, but I can see how you may. Thank you for your response. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Article draft: Independent Age
( Draft:Independent Age - Wikipedia) ]] Hi Mcmatter, I added some independent sources to this article draft which previously had this message from you 'Submission rejected on 28 March 2023: since there are no independent published sources this is not notable enough for someone else to have noticed let alone Wikipedia.' Could you let me know if the draft now qualifies and could be re-submitted? Thanks so much for any help. Sew1920 (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sew1920 since improvements have been made I will vacate my rejection and allow for you to resubmit it. I don't currently have time to actually verify everything I will not provide a full review at this time. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion: Draft:DHRpro,_LLC
Yes, you are correct. This is my first article.

I don't understand the speedy deletion recommendation. I wrote the stub using another company's stub that appears on Wikipedia today -- and wrote it without bias. Here is the stub I used to create DHRpro's stub: Modernizing Medicine. (Please note that I am not nor have I ever been affiliated with Modernizing Medicine.) DHRproClarity (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @YearningForClarity I can no longer see the draft as it has been deleted. However the reviewing admin also agreed with the assessment. Your original username also gives an indication you probably have a conflict of interest with this group and may have a hard time being subjective on the topic. Please read though WP:COI and follow the required steps to declare if you do. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Gulkand
Draft:Gulkand is not in Bosnian, it's in Romanian. You might want to fix your decline comment. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Fixed thank you McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Government Boys Higher Secondary School Chakghat
Hello Mcmatter. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Government Boys Higher Secondary School Chakghat, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. BangJan1999 15:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Overly Sarcastic Productions
Thank you for your feedback on Draft:Overly Sarcastic Productions. I can see that many of the sources I used were not as objective as is preferred by Wikipedia. However, I do think that at least two of my sources do meet the notability requirements; namely sources 1 and 7. These both were partially authored by the subjects of the article, but large portions of their information were provided by much larger corporate entities (YouTube and Boston University) and could not be altered by them (view count, number of subscribers, graduating year, majors). These results also corroborate other, more directly involved sources. Additionally, I strongly feel that, if one wanted to prove that Person A authored Document B, Document B (which contains proof of authorship) should not be invalidated as a source just because it was authored by Person A. I feel that that was the case with a large number of my sources. I understand that you doubtless have a much better grasp on Wikipedia's policies than I do and I readily admit that the article is imperfect and requires revision, but I feel that it is good enough to be made into an article where that revision can more easily happen. Thanks. PotatoCow25 (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @PotatoCow25 the first source returns a 404 Error ( it's supposed to be https://www.youtube.com/user/RedEyesTakeWarning/about ) and it does nothing towards the WP:GNG policy as it is a primary source, they write the content for that page. The subscriber or view numbers mean nothing to Wikipedia. The Boston University source is also considered primary/connected and does absolutely nothing to establish how they are notable especially since it doesn't discuss the channel at all. A mention is not a discussion. A source that helps to establish the notability of a subject must meet all 3 of the criteria I linked in my last comment on the draft. The article needs to be based on what others have said about the subject, who are unconnected to the subject and published in what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sorry. I was actually referring to sources 2 and 8. I tried to delete source one, but it doesn't appear for me in edit mode and all the other sources are bumped up one number. I am aware that they write most of the content for that page, but some information on the page, namely view count and subscribers, is not determined by them. Besides that, I concede that better/other sources are required. PotatoCow25 (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Eleftherios Papadimitriou (Greek Politician)
I have placed 9 references - Pls tell me what to do to resubmit. 1 is from the Greek Parliament source - the others are from daily top tier greek newspapers. I think they are reliable sources. Also there is a link from the council of Europe's site concerning Papadimitriou.

Puresymphony (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Puresymphony, click the link in my comment near the top of the page and read the page it takes you to. It will teach you how to format the references. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * OK - I have placed links in the text's paragraphs - Some sources are in Greek though.
 * I have resubmitted the latter. Puresymphony (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mcmatter
 * Thank you for your editing! As a new member can i ask you a question - Papadimitriou also holds an MA in economics from NYU. The Greek vouliwatch mentions it. What further proof is needed?
 * https://vouliwatch.gr/mp/papadimitriou-eleutherios Puresymphony (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Puresymphony after looking deeper into the source and using a translation software it looks like most of what you have written was copied verbatim from this source which would constitute a copyright violation. Everything needs to be in your own words not someone else's, especially a source written by the subject or his team.
 * We generally do not care for profile sites like this as they are generally written by the subject or his team. They may be used sparingly and only to support basic facts as per WP:PRIMARY. You may reinstate some of the information, in a personal life section, I would not put any of it in the lede. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mcmatter
 * First of all it is a translation. Secondly, Vouliwatch has sent, at 7th of June 2023, Wikipedia "at permissions", an email, confirming the grant of use of rights.
 * Do you need again an email by vouliwatch? Actually vouliwatch is an NGO. No affiliation whatsoever with Papadimitriou. You could check their link.
 * Also can you add, a section "Academic background" and could you change the title from "attack" to assassination attempt? translate again footnote no.2.
 * Thank you. Puresymphony (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Puresymphony, I'll be honest, we don't really care about whether it is a translation or if permission has been granted it is best to always write in our own words. The profile on Vouliwatch would still be provided by the subject or his team with very little editorial oversight.
 * Our WP:NPOV policy would prefer the term attack unless an overwhelming number of sources say it was an assassination attempt, which I do not see being the case.
 * I will also note I do not see you have declared your conflict of interest on this subject. Please read through WP:COI and make the require declarations. Going forward you can make suggestions on the talk page of the article. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mcmatter

I object on the neutrality standpoint. As a historian i was simply tried to mention biographical elements.

According to the facts: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puresymphony (talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Every newspaper footnote says it was an "assassination attempt". Duck test - Pls Google translate.
 * (Greek Mainstream newspapers) (10 links) - Even the BBC describes the attempt.
 * 1. https://www.kathimerini.gr/society/124723/tzortzatos-to-proto-pistoli-stis-ekteleseis/
 * 2. https://www.kathimerini.gr/society/149149/emeis-toys-thesmoys-chtypagame/
 * 3. https://www.kathimerini.gr/society/148076/kolyma-dikigoron-kai-apoysia-martyron/
 * 4. https://www.tanea.gr/2003/04/16/greece/i-apopeira-kata-papadimitrioy
 * 5. https://www.tovima.gr/2008/11/24/archive/ta-xtypimata-tis-17-noembri-no-73-77/
 * 6. https://www.tanea.gr/2002/07/20/greece/oi-ektelestes-21-epithesewn-tis-17n/
 * 7. https://www.in.gr/2003/04/18/greece/oi-ypotheseis-mpoyloykmpasi-papadimitrioy-kai-sipaxiogloy-sti-diki-tis-17n/
 * 8.https://www.newsbeast.gr/greece/arthro/2989725/i-skotini-diadromi-tou-koufontina-sto-elliniko-antartiko-polis
 * 9. https://www.flash.gr/greece/20077/tromokratia-pws-fthasame-stin-exarthrwsi-tis-17n
 * 10. https://www.bbc.co.uk/greek/local/030328_17nspecial3.shtml Puresymphony (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Check also Greek Site: Konstantinos N. Papadimitriou
 * https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9A%CF%89%CE%BD%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B1%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%82_%CE%9D._%CE%A0%CE%B1%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%B4%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B7%CF%84%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%BF%CF%85
 * and (in greek) https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/Vouleftes/Diatelesantes-Vouleftes-Apo-Ti-Metapolitefsi-Os-Simera/?MpId=f7d51224-862f-41d3-be94-d8e7be0d777b
 * Eleftherios Konstantinos Papadimitriou - In Greece, the middle name is the fathers name.
 * Also, (In greek) https://www.hellenicparliament.gr/Vouleftes/Diatelesantes-Vouleftes-Apo-Ti-Metapolitefsi-Os-Simera/?MpId=f8864543-f17a-440c-9fe6-0cfd1d05a5cb
 * Konstantinos Nikolaos Papadimitriou.
 * I think that the previous comments about his life, education and family should be reinstated.
 * I think that the previous comments about his life, education and family should be reinstated.
 * I think that the previous comments about his life, education and family should be reinstated.

These are his personal general details (public knowledge), he is a frequent guest on TV - and I dont think has anything to do with neutrality.


 * You could ask me also what further proofs do you need. For instance there are double standards, check for instance: Sotirios Hatzigakis.
 * Also I would like your comments on the introduction to be removed. If not state your case.
 * Thank you - Puresymphony (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Puresymphony, this is the last time I will comment here on the article. You need to declare your conflict of interest on this subject and post your requested edits on the article talk page. Continued POV pushes may end up with your editing privileges being revoked. The instructions for this declaration are on your talkpage
 * I only checked the first 5 references and none of them called it an attempted assassination they either called it a attempted murder or attack. Now I do admit this can be the fault of Google translate and I cannot go beyond that.
 * We don't compare articles, each article must stand on it's own merits. Just because one article is wrong or bad does not mean we must allow all others to as well.
 * We also don't care what any other version of Wikipedia does. Each language version is its own project and has its own policies and guidelines. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * CIR is certainly an accurate diagnosis here (along with everything else); good luck. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Some WP:ROPE was just given. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I imagine you're aware, but noticed they did not notify you properly. PriusGod (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Inquiring about a deleted article
I made an article under name PORTLAB which is a website I talked about it. After a while, I got a message from you McMatter about the article and that you think that it is for advertising. I want you please to revise it because it is really not for advertising, I just want people to know about that website, even I don't know who is the owner of the website, I know only the creator. I hope you will revise it, Thank you. Jhon Dev (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Jhon Dev the draft has already been deleted by an admin who agreed with my assessment. I cannot reverse the deletion nor can I speak to anything that was in the draft as I don’t recall it. Your best bet is to declare your conflict of interest on your user page and familiarize yourself more with the policies and guidelines of writing an article for Wikipedia. WP:YFA is a good place to start, then WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!
Hello , The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:
 * There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by using  at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Khaled Al Saif
Hello, i did add notable sources with depth- covearge with the person from newspaper that had an arabic wikipedia page and i get help on chat Help Wikipedia-en and they agreed finally that the first source is consider retabile and i can use it to move the draft to the page. Also there are agreement from @DoubleGrazing that sources #1–6 are reliable, and i did remove source #7 & #8, so can i now resubmit the article to become a puplic page. I hope there are contact with the help to let you know the final reult about their opinion. thanks in advance. John.GGVV (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @John.GGVV: just to clarify/repeat, as I as I said at the help desk, the sources themselves are reliable, but this isn't enough; they must actually support the article contents, and if you're trying to rely on them to establish notability, they must also provide significant secondary coverage of the subject. My advice is not to move the draft into the main article space past AfC, but to resubmit it for another review instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes i'll do what you said, and to add comment about significant secondary coverage of the subject i did this already check source no. #1 and #6. John.GGVV (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * why? you told me to resubmit for another review and i did that. John.GGVV (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also i removed the sources that talk about his daughter because in Live chat told me this isn't make him notable, honstly this chat provide me what is missing and it was very helpful. John.GGVV (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @John.GGVV besides the automatic message stating something about reliable sources, both in my comment and my message on your talk page I pointed toward significant coverage on him is required. This would mean how has he made such a difference that reliable sources have taken upon themselves to discuss him on his own merits, not just that he is the father of a notable person. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so I made many amendments and added the sources that talk about him, not his daughter, and removed the sources that have nothing to do with him. John.GGVV (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so I made many amendments and added the sources that talk about him, not his daughter, and removed the sources that have nothing to do with him. John.GGVV (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

2009cATBOOK COI?
Hi there. You posted a warning of COI at here but with no explanation at all. Not even a link! Why did you think he has a COI? I am just curious because this is a real problem editor who must be stopped for so many other reasons. I just reported him to an admin. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 07:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Smuckola, if I were to surmise why I gave this warning almost a year ago, one only need look at the earlier 2 message from me about the draft they wrote. It obviously had enough issues in it to indicate a possible COI, there is no requirement to post evidence or reasons in the warning. They know they have a COI and adhere to the warning, they say they don't and argue why their formatting and language is ok for Wikipedia, despite our guidelines and policies or completely ignore the warning like in this case. Trying to track this down 11 months later seems like a waste of time. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

AFC edit conflicts
Damn, I've now edit conflicted twice in a row! Surprised that the Helper Script doesn't alert you to such a conflict or even block the conflicting edit outright like MediaWiki does. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Taking Out The Trash It happens quite a bit, don't worry about it. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Help Request to Edit the Biography,Draft:Andres Gach Gatluak Wechkuoth
Dear @Mcmatter

i have been trying to publish my first Article About one of my favorite Figures. But unfortunately you have been placing a Deletion Alerts and finally the article was deleted.

I am glad to have your help and support to publish this with your help instead of deleting.

I will appreciate your support in Advance.

regards,

Kueth nyanuor (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive
 Hello Mcmatter:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Companion Volume to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
Hi, I'm at a loss who to talk/write to and how to promote the publication of our article. We (i.e. my co-author Jürgen Quetz and myself) are surprised by your comments. Firstly, our submission is supported by 33 references (academic books and journals) and 8 footnotes incl. sources. Secondly, our submission is not written in the style of an advertisement. We are the official translators of the CEFR-CV into German. In this role, we have not only read every line and sentence of it but also referred back to the Council of Europe's authoring team whenever a point did not seem clear to us. We are not commissioned or paid by anyone. Neither are we the authors of the CEFR-CV or writing on behalf of the Council of Europe. Our sole motivation is to update Wikipedia content on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and provide a reliabel overview of the Council of Europe's new "Companion Volume" (2020). This information has been missing so far. We submitted a similar article to the German Wikipedia, whose compliance rules are identical with the English ones. This was accepted and published without changes. The reason why we are submitting this here is that an adequate entry in English is missing. What exactly can we do to meet your expectations? We would appreciate, therefore, if you or someone else from the Wikipedia-team re-read our submission and - if necessary - be more specific with respect to points in need of improvement. Thanks. Rcjqffm (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Rcjqffm, I would look again as the tone is promotional in nature in the very first sentence. Who says it's important and why? This statement is subjective and attempts to promote the subjects importance. The entire paragraph on the council is once again promotional in tone. The third paragraph is complete subjective text speaking of "lasting impact". I could go on and on. You need to rewrite in a neutral tone based on what reliable sources have said about it without all the subjective hyperbole.
 * What the German Wikipedia does is of no concern here as each project has it's own standards.
 * You will also need to read through WP:REFBEG on how to cite properly on Wikipedia and clean up your headings as they include the cut and paste leftovers.
 * Consider adding some wikilinks to connect this draft to other articles on Wikipedia.
 * This draft is definitely not ready to be in the main space in its current state. It may be notable and eligible for an article but it needs to conform to English Wikipedia standards. Once you have made the changes you can resubmit for someone else to review. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that helps. I'll do my best and change the things you mentioned and submit it again. Rcjqffm (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Valentine Goddard wikipedia page
Sorry not sure how this works im kind of new. Thanks for your feedback i appreciate it i was wondering which sources weren't direct enough. Because for the awards, they were awarded directly to her and for the proof that she started the company is certified by the United Nations. Rowan Harris goddard (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Rowan Harris goddard, those are examples of connected or not significant coverage from a reliable sources. In order to prove notability by Wikipedia standards we need to see that other have taken notice and written in detail about the subject and had that published in a reliable source, known for fact checking and editorial oversight. The awards are not something that automatically confers notability nor does owning a company certified by the UN. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So more like news articles about her or like interviews on TV? Rowan Harris goddard (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Because i have tv interviews on national television, reputable news papers, governmental sourced information, university papers on her i dont understand what i need more. If you have any sugegstions thatd be great thanks. Rowan Harris goddard (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Declining of my creation of a page for Paw Paw Old Mayor's Office and Jail
Hi,

Thank you for the quick review of my first foray into the Wiki world. Draft:Paw Paw Old Mayor's Office and Jail

Unfortunately, I'm not much for HTML and such. I put together the initial draft based on the following webpage. As such I'm not sure why my draft wasn't acceptable. I did add a second reference and added some more info to the footnote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloat-Horn-Rossell_House WV Veritas (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

About my article review
Hello there thank you for having reviewed my article. I get why you declined it but since the subject is not documented anywhere else I decided to share my knowledge about it, that's why it doesn't have any references and sources. Most importantly I'm making this so it could be referenced under Netease Titles that now have incorrect information about the engine they use for their games like Rules Of Survival. Thank you. Aexadev (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * All these reasons you give are not reasons for an article to exist at this point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on topics which are already notable and have been documented and published by others. If this has not happened for this product then it is not considered notable enough for Wikiepdia. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Article source query - article declined
Hi,

I have been creating the page "Andrew Watson (educator and artist)" and you declined the article for the following reason:

''The sources which prove notability must meet each of these three criteria independent of the subject, significant coverage of the subject and reliable. None of the sources in this draft meet all three of those criteria.''

Several sources that I used meet all three of these criteria, including referencing from the International Baccalaureate Organisation (IB), the United World College (UWC) movement, Routledge, the International School of Amsterdam and the International School of Florence in addition to IBICUS - an independent IB workshop facilitation platform. I also reference newspaper articles from published newspapers in Thailand. I'm not sure how these sources fail to meet these criteria. In addition, as the subject of this article contributes to academic and international education literature, including that literature as a reference is a necessity, even if it then lacks 'independence' - though is it also published by external organisations and magazines in the international education sphere (ISC Research and International Schools Magazine). This seems to be somewhat of a catch-22.

Some of these references (for example, SusEd.org) are also used on Richard Calland's (approved and published) Wikipedia article, despite that being an organisation that he works with.

Please could you clarify your position.

Thank you.

Shmeejw Shmeejw (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Shmeejw, independent means no association with the subject. This means any group they work for, worked for or are a member of is not independent. Significant coverage means that the subject is heavily covered in the reference, beyond simple listings or basic biography as most biographies are created by the subject making them also not independent. Reliable means from published sources that have editorial oversight and known for fact checking on their content. We do not include school/college/universities newspapers as reliable. There is no rule saying you can't use these sources to support some basic facts in the article, however to prove notability you need sources that meet the 3 criteria mentioned above, which you have none of. The other option is to demonstrate they meet another criteria of WP:NPROF. I will not comment on other articles as there are millions of articles and not all of them have been properly vetted and may not be acceptable. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Thanks for getting back to me.
 * "This means any group they work for, worked for or are a member of is not independent"
 * How can this be possible? For example, if I take Antonio Gutteres, Secretary General of the UN, there are multiple references that directly reference the United Nations as a source backing up what is written about him. The International Baccalaureate is an enormous organisation spanning every habited continent. "As of February 2024, there were over 8,000 programmes being offered worldwide, across over 5,700 schools in 160 countries" (IB). In 2021, 170,000 students graduated from the IB Diploma Programme. How is having worked for an organisation of this size not an independent source? I don't understand what the parameters of this could possibly be then, unless you're literally asking for an organisation as big as the United Nations. Similarly, the United World College movement is an organisation with 18 schools around the world, 60,000 graduates and represents 160 nationalities. Again, how can this not be an independent source? How can their affiliated organisations, such as IBICUS, not also be independent? The IB sometimes outsources workshops to organisations such as IBICUS to facilitate and organise workshop development in international education.
 * "Significant coverage means that the subject is heavily covered in the reference, beyond simple listings or basic biography as most biographies are created by the subject making them also not independent."
 * My question, perhaps naturally, comes back to how does one determine that a source like the IB or UWC is not independent? I, as a user, have no way of knowing that the subject will have written his biography himself, but similarly you have no evidence to support that he has. Where does one draw the line/how does one make that determination? It seems rather unfair to dismiss sources without evidence of their alleged lack of independence.
 * "Reliable means from published sources that have editorial oversight and known for fact checking on their content. We do not include school/college/universities newspapers as reliable."
 * This is fine, and I do have some of these as sources, but again, I have also included references to articles published in the independent newspaper the Pattaya Mail as a source, including a full interview by an independent journalist with and about the subject of the article. I have also included a second reference from a different article (same newspaper) where an independent journalist reviews and episode of the TV programme that the subject has created. I have also added a clip from an Albanian news broadcaster where the anchors interview the subject on his impact on the Albanian education system. I'm also adding the google scholar reference to the book chapter he co-wrote, which includes the number of citations.
 * "The other option is to demonstrate they meet another criteria of WP:NPROF"
 * "For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, significant academic awards and honors may include, for example: major academic awards (they would also automatically satisfy Criterion 2)... [and] highly selective fellowships". The subject of this article is a recipient of an honorary Doctorate from the University of Albania for his work developing the education system there, however I have no online sources other than the clip I included above (which is now a reference in the article). In addition, the subject is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, which, quite reasonably, does not publicly publish lists of its members. How would one prove this ? I would also like to stress these comments from the aforementioned source page:
 * - Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences.
 * - in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries)
 * Please advise,
 * Thanks. Shmeejw (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * YFA@Shmeejw, you are missing the point I am not saying you can't use the sources to back up some of the information. I am saying none of them meet all the criteria for notability. Interviews are not independent it's the subject talking about themselves. You have come to Wikipedia and tried to undertake one of the most difficult tasks by creating an article. I would recommend reading through more of the policies and guidelines to understand the requirements. You can also try and read through WP:YFA and if you are going to compare articles look at the ones listed at WP:GA/SS as those have been heavily vetted against a stringent criteria. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:AN
Administrators' noticeboard &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:32, 17 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)

Ppress Ltd
Dear Mcmatter

I would kindly request your help for this article as Im not so experienced in creating completely new articles, and secondly this publisher is very new in the market what practically makes it impossible finding more references that fulfill the criterias.

Thanks a lot Khufu2019 (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Khufu2019 if they are new and don't have much out there about them from reliable sources that are independent of them. Then they probably don't qualify for an article because they are not yet notable enough Wikipedia. If this is the case then no amount of editing will help that. See WP:TOOSOON for more guidance. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia pages in another language
Hi, thanks for your helpful edits this morning on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fjordgata_Records You removed a number of link to outside pages of artists. I thought it is tolerated but I infer from your edit that as a very general rule, it is just no. Correct? The second thing is that you also removed a link to a Norwegian Wikipedia page: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazzlinja I think there is a way to indicate as a note while hovering over a name that the page does not exist in the current language, but is available in another one ('no' in this particular case). Then you can click on a link and it displays the page which already exists in the other language. But I can't find how to do that...? Thanks Cavansyte (talk) 07:18, 13 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)