User talk:Mz7/September–November 2016

Revert on an edit
I feel like what I edited was a constructive addition and it is worthwhile to keep please reconsider your decision — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo Sutton (talk • contribs) 23:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello . You are welcome to make contributions to Wikipedia; however, changing the listed official website of Royal Bay Secondary School to the "American Nazi Party" is clearly inappropriate. If you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia, I invite you to check out our introduction page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on this talk page. Mz7 (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Campus Mission Church (New York City): Sep 2, 2016
Thanks for your helpful and kind comments on the draft! Following your suggestion, I've added two more references (a news article and a TV news w/ a video link) and added a few other sentences as well. Hopefully this will change your mind! :-) Please let me know if the article needs to be resubmitted for a review.  Thank you!! Mjoung (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll take a look and let you know my thoughts. Mz7 (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sonic Boom issue 1 comic cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Sonic Boom issue 1 comic cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Why was my user page reviewed?
Hi, i saw a notification today morning that you currently reviewed my user page, why did you do it?Is there anything wrong?

Regards Dan Mathew (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Greetings, . On the contrary, nothing is wrong. The notification that you got is part of our new page patrol system. All newly created pages on Wikipedia are screened by experienced editors to ensure that they comply with our policies and guidelines. I have reviewed your user page and marked it as "patrolled", meaning your user page looks okay to me—it does not violate any of our policies and guidelines. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank You!
Thank you for reviewing my user page, you know I worry a lot so I was a little scared only,Thank you for doing it.

Regards

Dan Mathew (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 03:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Sia - Cheap Thrills page
Sorry I don't yet know how to respond to a specific topic on the talk page, so I thought I'd write you here. I saw the link about the key and it seems every other page I could find regarding sheet music for that song said the same thing. I think the information that is misleading is the chord progression of vi-IV-I-V which is a variation of I-V-vi-IV (it just starts on vi). If this is in a minor key, the progression would be i-VI-III-VII, which technically is a variation on the I-V-vi-IV progression as the article states however when following the link to the chord progression's page, there is no mention of the minor key variation of this progression. Maybe that is where an edit or addition needs to occur. There is a reason it's called music theory, it's just a theory. We can all look at the same thing and come to different conclusions. It's a beautiful thing. Ozymo (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Ozymo, thanks contacting me. I am not well-versed in music theory at all, so I don't think I'm the best editor to evaluate your concerns. I've left a note for the members of WikiProject Music theory, which is a group of Wikipedians focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of music theory. I've asked them to look into this issue. The Wikipedia editing process normally requires that editors provide sources that verify any information that they want to add to an article, so we would need a reliable source that specifically confirms that the song has a specific chord progression and key. However, in this case, the source presented lists the key of a sheet music of a pop song. I'm not sure how reliable it is to transcribe pop music into sheet music – would it be possible for the whole key or chord progression to change in the process? Mz7 (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * A music theory project member has responded at the Cheap Thrills talk page. Mz7 (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for your attention to this article. It is neat seeing the process and you are very patient and helpful. Thanks again! Ozymo (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications
Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Deferred changes/Request for comment 2016
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Deferred changes/Request for comment 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hello Mz7. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  05:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The Signpost: 4 November 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
...for the better rationale. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes discussions template
I just wanted to get your opinion on the change I just made to Template:Pending changes discussions and its documentation. What do you think? Should anything be changed?  — Gestrid  ( talk ) 00:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good! I don't see anything glaringly wrong with it. Standardizing placement of the shortcut box seems like an improvement to me. Thanks for the update! Mz7 (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help
Hi ,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted. Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC
Hi. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Re World Field Archery
I got the information from the |Olympic Information Centre. I have added the page number to the reference in the 1976 article. In addition every championship was listed on the World Archery Championships page with a source created by a previous user. I checked each one and added all the medallists in new articles, they were all working then but it seems that the worldarchery.org website has changed. I have found a source on their website |1976 which confirms the venue in 1976 was in Sweden. I am not sure why the International Field Archery Association list different venues. Probably like so many other sports that have several governing bodys claiming world titles. Hope this helps. Racingmanager (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that does help! The IFAA website is a bit indeed strange. I suppose the most likely explanation is that the "International Field Archery Association" is entirely distinct from the "World Archery Federation". Mz7 (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vinicius and Tom
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vinicius and Tom 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 Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter
Hello ,


 * Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action. If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
 * Second set of eyes

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation. Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .
 * Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

Your GA nomination of Vinicius and Tom
The article Vinicius and Tom you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vinicius and Tom for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)