User talk:My Pants Metal/Archive 7

The edit I just made was true, it is a little known fact. Google it and you will find that same fact stated by numerous credible sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.218.95 (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * While it may be true, it was trivial in nature and uncited. That's why it was reverted. --My Pants Metal (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently Special:ListUsers/patroller New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Perfect Game (Buffalo Bills)
Hello, My Pants Metal. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Perfect Game (Buffalo Bills), 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) 19:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Beef Wellington's Ambiguous origin.
Earlier today I edited the article regarding Beef Wellington. Last I had seen the article (about a year ago) it said that the dish was French, and today I returned to see it claim it was of English origin. I don't know who made that edit, but whoever did clearly didn't read the Wikipedia page because it still contains an entire paragraph explaining thoroughly why the dish probably isn't English, but French. I edited the article a second time to clarify that its origins are actually ambiguous to correct this contradiction. I didn't add any sources because the article already contained my sources (An article from The Telegraph written by Leah Hyslop, a journalist specialized on food and drink) in the aforementioned paragraph (Which is still present in the page). Deleting my edit, while leaving that paragraph in the article makes the article contradict itself, as it first claims that it is English, and then explains thoroughly why it probably isn't. Given that most people will not read the full article but instead just rely on the preview provided by Google, this risks misinforming people. My edit was a simple one, but it was backed up by the entire Wikipedia page already. 2806:103E:27:462:ADD1:A6C5:3172:B370 (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Links
Hi there! I just started reviewing articles etc on Wikipedia. I have corrected some articles grammar and added to external links: 1 Tony's Chocolonely - a link to The Conran Shop's page which tends to promote unique brands like that ones and talks about the companies. 2 Acacia - a link to an article from a Beekeepers page that is has a guide regarding the topic. You have cancelled the link so I wanted to ask why referring this kind of sources is wrong? I want to learn more about this so I don't waste time with this type of references if there are not useful.

Thank you NexusNJ (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)