User talk:Nford24


 * Archives
 * OriginalArchive1
 * OriginalArchive2
 * OriginalArchive3
 * OriginalArchive4

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023
Hello , Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by  and  with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of, and also some patches from , has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders
 * Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
 * There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and on IRC.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

The Bugle: Issue 217, May 2024
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
Your recent editing history at Alan Bates shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in being blocked from editing&mdash;especially as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the one-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Maybe there could be a compromise for people. Instead of in the typical prefix slot, put it in front of the name, so that it's the same font size/bold, but then it, so it still sits atop the name. Perhaps that'll aid the visceral transition? Just a spontaneous thought, ha. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 08:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hmm, reverting you once and you reverting twice doesn’t make me the person guilty of edit warring, but hey, you’re telling the story. You may need to read up on WP:BRD before continuing to edit Willy-nilly. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 10:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You reverted prior to me, <--as seen there, to an IP user—who themself had reverted Atchom, who themself had amended the prefix without consensus discussion about this issue unbeknownst to many. Thus, you had reverted twice before I did. I believe it's applicable to the # of reverts of the same edit, regardless of the user.
 * And from a previous issue I had, in which it had gotten......Just insane, including stalking to every single article I had edited on within the past couple of days....I had reported for the first time ever for both 3RR and harassment. And w/ 3RR and showing the diffs, I believe part of the instructions were to ensure I had opened up the lines of communications on both the user talk page between the person with whom I engaged in an edit war before it escalated further, to see if I can prevent having to summon a conflict resolution moderator; and the article talk page, to open the forum for others to weigh in on the topic at hand.
 * Without canvassing of course, unless (apparently in a previous instance) summoning previously involved people in the same dispute? Perhaps that instance was desperation for the deadlocked. I dunno. But that's to answer your talk page question. Just following the protocol, and making an effort. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 00:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Atchom is acting with plenty of consensus from experienced editors, though most disagree (and I acknowledge that is an oxymoron). The most recent discussion can be found here Template talk:Infobox person. Most of the editors simply don't understand the complexities around titles in general, and the rest are against having 'Sir' on the name line, generally fail (or in some cases specially refuse) to take into account documented references calling knighthoods "name-changing titles", which only occurs in commonwealth countries (UK, AUS, NZ, etc). The ain issue can be shown here Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2008 archive: Honorific prefixes, where the quiet statement was actually mentioned "The U.S. doesn't recognize titles of nobility, so there is no such thing as a Sir Charles Darwin here." by User Ripe, which demonstrates clear US thought bias on WP.
 * Take the whole thing as you see fit, but the existing wording largely stems from a 'consensus' that no one can find in any records publicly available on WP and editors don't want to change because its WP:FAITACCOMPLI.
 * On a side note, I suggest you read WP:DTTR and WP:DTA, both will likely help you deal with some editors in future, templates are not a civil form of conversing. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 218, June 2024
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 219, July 2024
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thankyou :) Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 01:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)