User talk:Rangasyd/Archive 13

Nomination of Macarthur Anglican School for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Macarthur Anglican School, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Macarthur Anglican School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Massive use of copyright material
Looking at your contributions I see that you have included huge amounts of text from the NSW historical register. For example: I draw your attention to the text found at the bottom of the latter reference."All information and pictures on this page are the copyright of Heritage NSW or respective copyright owners."You appear to have incorporated slabs of text from government sources into hundreds of Wikipedia articles. Please indicate your reasons for doing so. --Pete (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Alma House The History section includes verbatim text from the NSW Heritage Inventory.
 * Cape Byron Light The History section includes verbatim text from NSW Environment
 * Thanks. And I draw your attention to the attribution in the articles, e.g. 
 * These two articles that you highlighted were part of a very large 2018 project that successfully entered into Wikipedia every article on the New South Wales State Heritage Register. (Please note that the Register is different from the NSW Heritage Inventory). The project follows similar projects in other Australian states and territories to enter items of significant heritage value into Wikipedia (e.g. World Heritage, National Heritage, and State/Territory Heritage). The project was completed by three experienced Australian editors and was moderated by a fourth editor who provided guidance when consensus re approach could not be reached. Regarding the attribution, the names of organisations have changed a little since 2018 with the Office of Heritage and Environment becoming Heritage NSW, and its functions variously administered by the Department of Planning and Environment and the Department of Premier and Cabinet. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Cheers Rangasyd (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you would be so very kind as to provide a link to the actual CC license? I can't see it in the sources you provide. The source needs to make the declaration, not us. Wording to the effect that all material on "this website" has a certain license seems to be imprecice. For example, the source you list is not from "this website" so material from that source doeesn't seem to be covered by a blanket license from a different source. You appreciate the need for precision in using the property of others, I hope? --Pete (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you appreciate the nature of the problem. You have simply replaced masses of our own text, each line cited and sourced, with text taken from a tertiary source which you apparently treat as the Voice of God. That's not how Wikiedia sourcing works. I have raised a discussion here. --Pete (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The CC-BY 4.0 licence is available by clicking the word licence above and then following the link to the Terms and Conditions of the licence. Pretty straightforward; however, if you need more detailed instructions, please holler. I'm curious of your use of the (double) possessive pronoun, viz., ...our own text..... I assume you're referring to the lighthouse... or am I mistaken? Do you have a vested interested? I'm not too sure why voice scored a big vee; do God's other parts get capitalised....?; but now I'm being silly! Again, if you're referring to the lighthouse, the edit added at least nine new sources to the article, created clear distinctions between notes, references, and established a bibliography that, in my opinion, helped to develop the article. I do like to respect WP:PILLARS, especially WP:CIVIL. Cheers :-) Rangasyd (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a serious problem. Please treat it as such. You've replaced secondary sourcing with tertiary sourcing on a massive scale and the creative commons licence you point to does not cover text on a different website. --Pete (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Appropriate tone of voice (or is that Voice) is more likely to get the desired outcome. Just sayin. 2001:8004:C04:498B:79EB:E738:F046:AAA3 (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC) 2001:8004:C04:498B:79EB:E738:F046:AAA3 (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Help for a new Wikipedia editor
Hey @Rangasyd, I'm a new editor to Wikipedia, and am currently working on Peter Nicol Russell, who was a Scotish/British/Australian civil engineer & foundryman in the 19th & 20th Centuries. My aim is to turn it from what was a stub-class article to C- or B-grade quality. Are you in the position to help me get it reviewed? As it's my first time majorly editing an article I'm pretty unsure of the protocol here, but I saw that you have worked on articles about people who lived in a similar era. Thanks in advance!! Chasseur99 (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Elementary and primary schools in Antigua and Barbuda


A tag has been placed on Category:Elementary and primary schools in Antigua and Barbuda indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 19 April 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)

Nomination of List of New South Wales Rural Fire Service brigades for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of New South Wales Rural Fire Service brigades, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/List of New South Wales Rural Fire Service brigades (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.
 * Backlog status

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
 * Backlog drive

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
 * TIP – New school articles

There is a new template available,, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
 * Misc

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, 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.
 * Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Allsaints catholic college crest.png
Thanks for uploading File:Allsaints catholic college crest.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
Hello ,

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators and, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
 * Backlog status

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.


 * Coordination: and  have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out.  will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.


 * Open letter to the WMF: The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.


 * TIP - Reviewing by subject: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.


 * New reviewers: The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, 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.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message
Hi ,

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
 * Invitation

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

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.

Nomination of Lorraine Wearne for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lorraine Wearne, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Lorraine Wearne until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Woodford Academy Listing
Thank you for adding Woodford Academy to this site. Unfortunately many of the references and citations in the source material used are either secondary or hearsay. The WA Management committee has spent several years creating an updated version of the Academy history which has been accepted by the Blue Mountains Cit Council and Heritage NSW as the most current and accurate history of the building - it is listed here :


 * Data Source: Local Government
 * Record Owner: Blue Mountains City Council
 * Heritage Item ID: 1170185
 * url: https://www.hms.heritage.nsw.gov.au/App/Item/ViewItem?itemId=1170185

"The following supplementary historical material was provided by the local Branch of the National Trust of Australia (NSW) as part of the 2017 Heritage Review (ref NTA correspondence dd 30th January 2017)"

We would attempt to correct the many errors in the current listing ourselves but we are not familiar with the medium or the editing process. The updated Heritage listing adresses all the issues including the incorrect attribution of the site as a hospital by Dr. Mark Henry Long (He was a chemist and his wife ran the building as a Guesthouse while he was bankrupt).

Could you replace the incorrect information harvested from the old version of Heritage NSW with the current listing?

Thank you. Woodford Acadamey Management Committee (talk) 07:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Refer to Talk:Woodford Academy for ongoing discussion. Please do not add comments on this page regarding Woodford Academy. Thanks Rangasyd (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 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 2022 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) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Ralph Harry
Hi. I'm John Harry-Ralph's son. You should be aware that I'm not at all knowledgeable about Wikipedia! I've read your comments about Ralph's page. I amended the page because I wanted to included more material about his professional and personal life; I am not an Esperantist. If there are standards or practices that I heven't adhered to then of course it would be appropriate for amendments to be made, but I would not like to see any material alterations to the content I added unless there are inaccuracies. I have to say that when I re-read the article I found it hard to see why you would describe it as being of poor quality-perhaps you could explain why you see it that way. But, thanks for taking an interest-it's important to me and the family that there should be a complete summary of his life on Wikipedia, and if your contribution results in that, we would all be very happy. Sincerely, John. 1.145.146.149 (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi John. Thanks for your message. I really appreciate you reaching out. Thanks. Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia that is sourced by content from editors, drawn on the basis of independent research. The article about your dad contains four references (independent research that is publicly accessible), of which three references relate to your dad's Australian Honours. For an article of this length, there would probably be 15-25 references from independent articles about your dad. As a family member of someone with a Wikipedia article, Ralph Harry, it would appear that you have a conflict of interest. A simple example is that the article states that your father was:
 * ... born in 1917 in Geelong, as the youngest of four children.
 * Where is the independent evidence to support this claim? Another example is:
 * Harry was brought up to be frugal, reticent and hardworking and in an atmosphere of reverence for academic achievement and the value of education.
 * Where is the independent evidence to support this claim? Another example:
 * The family was Presbyterian and teetotal. Harry's mother was a committed Woman's Christian Temperance Unionist and became World President of the organisation while Harry was at school.
 * Where is the independent evidence to support this claim? Further, what is the relevance of your family's frugality, reticence, hardworking nature, reverence for academic achievement, Presbyterianism, teetotalism, etc…. to your dad's career as a senior diplomat? Knowing these things is great, from a family perspective, but Wikipedia is not a family history project. Wikipedia requires independent research from a third party (not related to your father) who can verify that this background made your dad the man he was. A good example about family background and its importance might be the article on Bob Hawke with these two lines:
 * Ellie Hawke subsequently developed an almost messianic belief in her son's destiny, and this contributed to Hawke's supreme self-confidence throughout his career. At the age of fifteen, he presciently boasted to friends that he would one day become the prime minister of Australia.
 * Notice that both of there two sentences are backed by references from an independent third party. Regrettably, in your dad's article, there are complete sections that are without any form of reference. In other words, we're relying on your personal knowledge; and you have a conflict of interest as you're related to Ralph.
 * So, where to from here? Have there been any independent articles written about your dad? Do you have newspaper clippings about your dad? Is there anything in the National Library of Australia or National Archives of Australia about your dad? All of these are good places to start to develop research. However, I would strongly recommend that you cease editing any article on any family member, due to the perceived WP:COI. I'm happy to help you, where I can. Finally, you asked why I described the article of poor quality. From my personal perspective, the following points may help:
 * lack of references
 * focus on family / personal detail that has little / no clear relevance to your dad's career
 * perhaps overly-lengthy, given your dad's impact on the world relative to other senior Australian diplomats - e.g. look at Philip Flood, Richard Woolcott, or James Plimsoll, the latter, of similar age to your dad. Most of these articles are well-referenced, succinct, and the articles are much shorter in length. It could be argued that each of these senior diplomats achieved much more than your dad… I don't know…..
 * I really hope that helps you. Feel free to chat further. Cheers. Rangasyd (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear. I've just noticed that you authored the SMH obituary. That needs to be disclosed to the reader of the article on your dad. It makes the SMH obituary a very weak source as you have a conflict of interest. Some of the language used in the lead two paragraphs is puffery. In short, we need independent third party references to prove your claims; and I'd tone down the language to be factual and remove emotive phrases . Sorry to be the bearer of (more) bad news. Rangasyd (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)