User talk:NotTheFakeJTP/Archive 2

Re: speedy deletion of YT channels w/ 1m+ subs
More information regarding why I fell this page should exist can be found on the AFL for the List of Notable YouTubers. L3X1 (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

About Royal Rumble 2017
With source do you mean like if I know how many appearences a wrestler has in Rumble Matches or if I have like a file showing them ? My account will now be shown I'm sorry wasn't logged in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilentWolf2K17 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to support your claim with a reliable source, or, more specifically, a reliable source from the Professional wrestling WikiProject. Wikipedia does not allow original research.  JTP ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

10:04:12, 19 January 2017 review of submission by Pipkin2.0
Not sure why you declined the draft based on references but I've revisited, made some further changes and verified all references - see my comment on the page. I would be grateful if you could either revisit the draft or give me some feedback as I really don't understand why the references provided aren't verifiable or reliable.

Many thanks

PS. Very rude of me, I should have thanked you for spending the time reviewing it in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipkin2.0 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2
Hello , We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October. The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level 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! It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to. Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten. This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody,  and
 * A HUGE backlog
 * Second set of eyes
 * Abuse
 * 1) this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting  in  a community ban.
 * 2) this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in  a community ban.
 * 3) This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

21:26:18, 7 February 2017 review of submission by GROOVEGURUS
Can you please tell me where the external link is that you are referring to? I do not see it. Thank you, GROOVEGURUS


 * Two comments. Firstly, those weren't "true" external links but misformed interlanguage links (fixed). Secondly, I really doubt any editor would argue that a page should be deleted because of external links in the body of the article. If it's not a reason for deleting an article, it shouldn't be a reason for declining a draft either, particularly if it's something so easily fixable. That doesn't mean the draft necessarily should be accepted (I haven't reviewed it), but if there is something wrong with it that would leave it at a significant risk of deletion if it were a live article, that should be the reason for declining it, not some minor formatting issue. Huon (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for realizing this. I meant to leave that as a comment, and not a declination. Please read the above response from Huon and my own response. I apologize for the mistake, and please feel free to resubmit your article and a reviewer will get to it. Apologies and regards,  JTP  (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

02:30:13, 10 February 2017 review of submission by 2600:8803:7A00:19:B1D6:A74D:9E61:CFB3
The AAC Logo needs to appear now can you load it up right now. 2600:8803:7A00:19:B1D6:A74D:9E61:CFB3 (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's not how it works. You may want to check out WP:Your first article. Your article relies on one source, and it is a WP:DEADLINK. Most sections are empty, and it may be a bit WP:TOOSOON until there is more information available.  JTP (talk • contribs) 02:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Fix the deadlink reference on aac article
Can You fix the deadlink right now because there is only one source and one ref that needs to be fixed now. 2600:8803:7A00:19:B1D6:A74D:9E61:CFB3 (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To fix a deadlink, either use the WP:Wayback Machine (see here) or find a WP:RS with the same information.  JTP (talk • contribs) 02:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

23:38:54, 11 February 2017 review of submission by 2600:8803:7A00:19:14A2:7224:84EA:118B

 * Please stop notifying me about your draft. It is not ready for acceptance, and will not be given priority above others. If you have a question about it, please post it at the help desk.  JTP (talk • contribs) 01:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3
Hello , Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed. We now have New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced. If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Still a MASSIVE backlog

Tagged for Speedy Deletion
Contested the CGP page's tag for speedy deletion, but wanted to reiterate here and see if you have advice for me. It's an informational page about a think tank, per Brookings, AEI, and any number of others. In an attempt to actually cite/reference, it may have seemed "unambiguously promotional" since information all links back to CGP pages at the moment, but I can certainly REMOVE those. Anyway, just looking for advice on how to make more encyclopedic. Thank you! CGPwiki (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

19:19:28, 23 February 2017 review of submission by Dragunsky1922
There are 6 outside, independent and verifiable sources on the Party of Communists USA wiki draft.

The sources include an international news agency, Sputnik News, among other references.

There are no references to the Party of Communists USA. All 6 references are outside sources.

Can you please inform me how this page is not being approved?
 * Your page provides no context as to why it should be included in Wikipedia. One paragraph, an infobox and a navbox does not certify importance. It also includes one news agency, when more would be preferred. SwisterTwister left a very helpful comment about major news outlets below his initial declination that is worth a look as well. If you have any further questions, the AfC help desk is open 24/7.  JTP (talk • contribs) 20:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It probably does not concern you much, but perhaps it really does -

What is important about this article is that the article's subject is the only Marxist-Leninist Communist Party in the United States.

I know that sentence probably does not mean a thing to you, but this is not the first time nor the last time the Party of Communists USA will created as an article on Wikipedia. In fact I believe there was a Party of Communists USA article in the past.

There is no other such formation in our country. For this reason, the article is relevant.

There is not one but thirteen (13) sources, and a few of them actually attack the article's subject. None of the references are related or a part of the article's subject. Some of the references openly attack the article's subject, yet these news sources still reference the Party of Communists USA.

Is there a minimum of 25 or 50 references required to publish an article on Wikipedia? I am just curious, since another person declined the Party of Communists USA Wikipedia article on the premise "The Party of Communists USA is too new to be on Wikipedia," which I think is not a very good claim at all, and I would like proof to support that user's claim.

Thank you

Dragunsky1922 (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

How can one do it?
Hello, i noticed you've performed less than 3,000 edits and yet, you are "new page reviewer", and "pending changes reviewer". How did that happen? And also, when i see some vandalisation, i can see the option to "rollback". I do that. But my profile doesnt say "rollbacker". Imam confused. Would you please clear my doubts? Thanks. —usernamekiran (talk ) 03:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You can see my reasoning for new page reviewer here and my PCR reasoning here. PCR is pretty lenient; a basic reading of policies, 500 mainspace edits and routine editing is required. As for new page reviewer, I was notified when the permission was first created, as I was an active AfC reviewer (I still am) and I was asked a CSD question in order to clarify basic policy understanding. As for the rollback issue, I assume you are using Twinkle, yes? In that case, rollback is the same as revert/undo. The rollback permission is a requirement for those who want to use Huggle, which is the primary reason people request rollback, as noted in WP:PERM/Rollback archives. I hope I helped answer any questions you had; if you have any more, I check here often.  JTP (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

revision
Hi there, you removed a request for semi protection from an article on Joe Fournier.

Can I ask why? The page has been getting vandalised daily so I wanted to stop that happening.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanky34 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your requests were blank. You need to format your requests in a "Please change XX to YY" or "Please add QQ between PP and RR" format.  JTP (talk • contribs) 14:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * after looking at your contributions, it seems you were the one who created the article. You may have wanted to request semi-protection for your article, in which case, your request should be made at WP:RFPP.  JTP (talk • contribs) 14:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sasha Banks
Just what is your objection to the *removal* of the sentence " Together they also set the new record for a women's match at Roadblock: End of the Line in December 2016 at over 34 minutes"? If you read my second edit request that is exactly what I am asking you to do. "please remove the sentence" is very clear don't you agree? Do you agree the sentence is not correct? Have I not provided multiple sources that prove 34 minutes is not a "new record"? Have I not repeatedly pointed out the the current source does not state 34 minutes is a record?

So why will you please not remove the incorrect sentence? Thank you. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:A8AF:E235:1649:94DE (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please remember to keep this discussion WP:CIVIL and WP:Assume good faith. I have no objection to the removal of the sentence. You specified in your first edit request that you wanted to clarify that it was the longest women's match in WWE history, although you provided no source that proves so. I know that there have been plenty of women's match much longer than 34 minutes, and you have proved that very well. My concern was that your second request to remove the sentence entirely was completely contradictory to your first request, and you did not specify that you had changed your mind about the main purpose of your request. If you would like to clarify that you want the entire sentence removed due to the fact thagt it is unsourced, I am more than happy to do so. Just say the word, and I can remove it.  JTP (talk • contribs) 16:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the sentence is unsourced and incorrect, the encyclopedia would be improved by its removal. Something I asked for two days ago.... 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:A8AF:E235:1649:94DE (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅  JTP (talk • contribs) 16:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Center for Creative Leadership
Htorres1902 (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Hello NotTheFakeJTP,

I noticed the article got tagged for deletion. can you please explain what made it sound promotional. I would be more than delighted to do edit it to make it sound less promotional. Htorres1902 (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So sorry for the delay, I was on vacation and forgot to place the Holiday on my talk page. Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do now; it has been creation-protected and I cannot view it. I am very sorry!  ActuallyTheFakeJTP (talk • contribs) (April Fools!)  17:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

BLP Prod
Just a quick note in regards to Tyson T-Bone. External links count as sources (see Proposed deletion of biographies of living people), so this article isn't eligible for a BLP Prod. That said, I completely 100% think this person is not notable, so I'm going to take it to AFD instead. Nikki ♥ 311  20:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Didn't realize that ELs count. I'll look into that more.  JTP (talk • contribs) 22:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Carl T. Nelson
Edesio (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC) The page "Carl Nelson (Linear)" was created by mistake. I am creating a new one "Carl T. Nelson" about the Analog Guru Carl Nelson. Among his creations is the (then) revolutionary temperature sensor LM34/LM35.
 * No problem. If you'd like, you can keep the current speedy deletion tag on there, or you can tag it with, a tag that says that the author of the page requests deletion.  JTP  (talk • contribs) 16:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your notice on Edfa3ly
I noticed you nomination of page Edfa3ly, Advertisement suspect text remove. please check for any noticeS!lVER M. (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Edfa3ly
Hello...You have reviewed this page Edfa3ly...a fake CSD tag placed there. could you please remove it...thanksS!lVER M. (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in a deletion discussion
Would you mind casting a !vote at Articles for deletion/Formswift? Thanks. L3X1 (distant write)  20:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Will proudly be displayed on my userpage. Thanks! :)  JTP (talk • contribs) 02:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

HyperRogue
Thanks for your work on keeping Wikipedia clean. I think that the current secondary sources for HyperRogue are significant enough, but if the community decides otherwise and the article becomes deleted, I hope that my work will be useful when it becomes more notable in the future. Zenorogue (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

WannaCry
Hi there, thanks for your message. With respect, I suggest that the primary function of an encyclopedia is to provide information that its readers find useful !

I put it to you that basic information on defending against a particular malware is entirely appropriate in an encyclopedia article devoted to that malware (and it is the reason I came to Wikipedia to look it up).

And perhaps many other people would also use Wikipedia as their first port of call when looking for such information.

Don't take offence at this, but ... it seems to me that too many WP editors are more concerned with pontificating on what is or is not "encyclopedic", and less concerned with actually making WP a functionally useful reference work.

Thanks for listening, All the best to you, Darkman101 (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and thank you for your politely worded message. However, I am going to have to disagree with you on all of your points.
 * Firstly, although the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information to readers, the guideline called WP:What Wikipedia is not outlines that Wikipedia is not meant to be a how-to guide or a manual. The section reads "'...an article should not read like a 'how-to' style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes.'"
 * Secondly, Wikipedia's main purpose is to point out what is or what is not considered encyclopedic. We WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. If someone is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, then why are they here?
 * I hope I cleared things up. If you have any further questions, my talk page is open 24/7, and so is the Teahouse.  JTP (talk • contribs) 14:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Divian Ladwa deletion request
Hello - I hope this message gets to you. I am not used to Wikipedia.. I had started the page for Divian Ladwa last night and because of the time difference between you and I, you must have caught it mid completion. I have worked on it more now to include references and citations etc and I hope you agree that Divian, being a co star of Hollywood A Listers in a Hollywood blockbuster, is worthy of having a Wikipedia page. He is about to embark on some pretty major projects too which will significantly raise his profile.

Please do let me know what happens now.

Kind regards and have a nice day!

Credits (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi I tagged your article with a WP:BLPPROD (aka Biography of a Living Person Proposed Deletion) because it had no references at the time. Now that it does, you did the correct thing in removing the tag. After taking a quick glance at your article, however, you may want to check out WP:Referencing for beginners, which will explain how to correctly use inline citations and how to use reflist. I hope I helped work out your confusion. If you run in to trouble, I'm always here.  JTP  (talk • contribs) 15:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
Hello ,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just reviews, the  backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

this here
I deleted as a attack page.Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That works. I was debating whether or not to tag it as G10 because it was an autobiography, but after thinking back on it, you were right to delete it under G10.  JTP (talk • contribs) 13:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it was an attack autobiography-- impersonate another person to impugn them.Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)