User talk:Rentier/Archive 2

Avner Halperin
Being an employee of the company I am concerned about the paid editing tag that our company's CEO has on his page. The person who created this article had already disclosed that he had done a paid editing. However, the tag was never removed from there. We also contacted help desk to fix this up. Although there was no response received. We really need to remove it. Please help us do so. Your help is greatly appreciated.--150.242.198.205 (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I have replaced the undisclosed paid tag with a conflict of interest tag. It can be removed after review by any editor who is not related to the subject. If you prefer, I think we can draftify the article, so that you can resubmit it through the articles for creation process. This would temporarily remove it from the public view. Rentier (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There appears to have been two more authors who haven't disclosed their paid contributions. Since you are an employee of the company, it shouldn't be difficult to compile a complete list and post on the article's talk page? Please continue the discussion there. Thanks, Rentier (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Thank you. I really appreciate your effort. We want to inform you that everyone has declare their COI and Paid work.

Here accounts involved
 * 1) User:G.Isabelle : Declared
 * 2) User:Yinonk : Declare
 * 3) User:Thcadd : Accepted that he was paid

If still anyone left, please let us know. We will ask them to declare so that no guidelines should be violated. --103.195.251.10 (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I would request you please pay attention and would appreciate your help in resolving the issue. and has clearly disclosed their paid editing as you know. has also accepted that he was paid in his block request. If you have doubt you can check his talk page. About this account, it is user id of Avner himself, which he used to make some minor changes in the article for once or twice. Obviously, he cannot pay himself to edit his own article. But still Wikipedia policy of paid editing says so, you can consider him paid or the person with conflict of interest. But consider that it was created to correct some minor errors. Please let us know what more clarification you need. Thank you. --150.242.197.93 (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please respond this time. Thanks --150.242.197.93 (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that the template could be removed (I did remove it but was reverted) - but don't expect me to spend my volunteer time on this arguing your case. You should continue the discussion on the article's talk page. Rentier (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. All accounts associate associated with the article Avner Halperin[[ has disclosed their paid edits still did not receive any positive response from Doc James. Mr. Doc himself is not following Wikipedia guidelines. Once all paid accounts associated with article are disclosed, then he should remove UDP tag. It would appreciate if you can somehow help us to resolve the issue. We aren't much familiar with Wikipedia things. Please see the discussion at [[Talk:Avner_Halperin, I have given satisfactory answer, still no positive response i have received. Thanks --150.242.198.196 (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

 * Also, I'd suggest trying out the new Rater tool which makes adding WikiProjects to new articles a breeze. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  05:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Joseph Monfort
Hi Rentier, There is no page on Joseph Montfort, so i thought i would add to Wikipedia. Only the last paragraph on his death was taken from another website, apologies i have now taken this out. The other text is purely by myself after discussing the sitter with a Masonic Scholar called Ric Berman who helped me with new information. The painting of Montfort belongs to me --Kerkyra22 (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerkyra22 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, thank you for your contribution. I see you have already filed an OTRS ticket to verify the permissions, so you are on the right track. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Rentier (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Halo Records
I am uncertain whether I should be mentioning this here or on the Halo Records talk page. I have added references, while at the same time acknowledging that the label is a modest music label in England. It has nonetheless been in existence for nearly twenty years, which would make it one of the longer-running independent labels. Hoping there is enough to keep the page.

Dreadarthur (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

 * You are very welcome. Thank you for your contributions. Rentier (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Season's Greetings
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Rentier: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message Abishe (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I wish you a Merry Christmas and for the upcoming year 2018. Thanks. Abishe (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

About Silvia Șerbescu
Dear Rentier,

I notice you added a tag mentioning a major contributor has a close connection to the subject. You are probably referring to her daughter, Liana Șerbescu. I agree this requires an explanation. I had introduced the explanation on the Talk page of the article. On April 30, 2017, I introduced some links, using her computer. I did this without realizing this would induce the impression that she was doing the work. As soon as I noticed my mistake, I commented on it on the talk page, hoping that people taking care of maintenance would notice the remark. Liana Șerbescu is not a contributor.

Maybe I should have done something more explicit. I don't know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia yet. Maybe you can give me some advice to present things in such a way that this will not be a problem in the future?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Jpkent (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have replied on the article's talk page. Rentier (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Need your advice on the article
Dear Rentier. Merry Christmas to you and Happy New Year. And may the Force also be with you :) I need your advice on the new article that I've started. Please tell how I should proceed with my draft Eric Schulz? This is not a paid entry. I was so impressed by his book "Marketing Game" that decided to make an article about the author. I contacted him for some details at his university email and he answered my questions. Today he also edited the draft from newly created account. This is clearly a "no go". How do you see it moving forward? Should there some notifications added to the talk page or draft? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Their edits weren't significant, so there is not much to be done. You can submit the draft as you would normally. You could put the Template:Connected_contributor on the article's talk page and advise the subject to not edit the article directly. As you can probably appreciate, the optics of you working on this article while in contact with the subject are bad. It looks like a paid job, even if it isn't one. Also, the subject's notability is borderline at best. Rentier (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. Will do this. I think he is notable. He wrote two books on marketing. By the way, I've read his book in Russian first, very old one, been given to me by a friend of mine. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I will ask for your advice again when finished with the draft if you don't mind. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Royal Opera House, Covent Garden
Thank you for reviewing my article. >MinorProphet (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

COI
Bruce Flatt - do you want the redirect FP'd, or do you still want to keep it as a honeypot? Up to you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say keep it. There are plenty of people watching that page. Rentier (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Tea and sympathy

 * Thanks.. I don't normally clean up after paid editors - I think it does more harm than good in the long run (BOGOF). Glad, actually, to see it heading for deletion. Rentier (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , and Rentier, see the red banner on  the top  pf my  talk  page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

NPP filter
Hi there. I reviewed a page which was on the NPP list today which had been already accepted via AfC. It struck me that articles which had already been through AfC, which end up on the NPP list could most likely be quickly reviewed as they have already received a review by the AfC team. Is there a way to Thanks in advance for your time and your contributions to the project! Edaham (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Filter articles which have on their talk pages?
 * Filter articles which were created through the article wizard?
 * Thanks for the suggestion - this is actually part of the new version of the tool that I have been (very slowly) developing over the past few months. The backlog may be gone by the time I finish it, but I exported the list. See below. Best, Rentier (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * {| role="presentation" style="min-width:400px" class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed sortable"

! Article ! ORES score
 * + | Unreviewed AfC-accepted articles
 * Justin Marshall (neuroscientist)
 * C
 * Stanisław Julian Ignacy Ostroróg
 * C
 * Robert Ernest Bryson
 * C
 * New Jersey Minority Educational Development
 * Start
 * Shellee
 * Start
 * Patrick O'Brien (artist)
 * James J. Peters VA Medical Center
 * C
 * New Mexico State Road 75
 * Start
 * Alfred Edward Rodewald
 * B
 * Copying network models
 * C
 * Cera (company)
 * Start
 * Jaynes-Cummings Model
 * GA
 * National Youth Service (Kenya)
 * Start
 * Paul D. Marks
 * Start
 * Siddhikali Temple
 * Stub
 * Pat Crowley (fashion designer)
 * C
 * Paolo Costagli
 * GA
 * Alex Cubis
 * Start
 * Coming Home (O'Connor Band album)
 * Start
 * New Burlington (book)
 * Start
 * Xing Zi Ming Chu
 * C
 * Eric Ly
 * C
 * Dick Flood
 * C
 * I Have Said Nothing
 * Start
 * Frances Ekstam
 * C
 * Stuart Leonard
 * C
 * Sigmund Abeles
 * C
 * Wolfgang Leidhold
 * C
 * Turaga Janaki Rani
 * C
 * Sharmila Mukerjee
 * Start
 * Sheldon Lake State Park and Environmental Learning Center
 * Start
 * Dante or Die Theatre
 * Start
 * BIVA - Bolsa Institucional de Valores
 * Stub
 * Brenda Strassfeld
 * Start
 * Convention on the Rights of Older Persons
 * C
 * Francis George Kenna Gallagher
 * Start
 * TripleLift
 * Start
 * Liquid-Phase Electron Microscopy
 * C
 * Brodie's Law (act)
 * C
 * Baumann & Cie, Banquiers
 * Start
 * Sierra Leonean Zip Code
 * C
 * James M. Loree
 * Start
 * 3D structure change detection
 * Stub
 * ICEM Surf
 * Start
 * Fernando Marin Valencia
 * Start
 * Pnina Granirer
 * Start
 * Simon (television series)
 * C
 * Biometric voter registration
 * C
 * Ethical regulator
 * Start
 * Explainable Artificial Intelligence
 * C
 * Panguana
 * B
 * Dom Pedro Hotels & Golf Collection
 * C
 * Ali Al-Rthoom
 * Stub
 * Khaled Al-Radaideh
 * Stub
 * Mahmoud Shawkat
 * Stub
 * Issa Nafesh
 * Stub
 * TIP TIG
 * Start
 * Enoch Adu
 * Start
 * Piotr Paweł Morta
 * Start
 * Financial Talent
 * Start
 * ThirdHome
 * Start
 * N Srinivas Rao
 * GA
 * Witten Women's Protest
 * C
 * Constantin Regamey
 * Start
 * Mortgage origination
 * C
 * Erry Yulian Triblas Adesta
 * C
 * }
 * Rentier, I'm pinging as he's been making a recent effort to provide a second objective look at recent AfC accepts from a NPP standpoint, and might find this useful. Interestingly enough, a lot of his work demonstrates why I think the double review system is important. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , despite not knowing precisely your thoughts on the subject, I also think a double review system is important. The stages as I see them would basically be - 1) AfC: is it ok for the main space? 2) NPP: how can it be further improved and cross linked to relevant projects? A skeptic looking at my questions up there might be worried that I was looking for a pile of articles to just click through, however such is not the case. I still think the AfC articles can benefit from critical review, but also am interested to have the list available to NPPers as it might quickly knock a chunk out of the backlog if people, such as myself, are attracted to the idea of reviewing articles, which have already earned some form of merit via a creation process. Edaham (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Start
 * Pnina Granirer
 * Start
 * Simon (television series)
 * C
 * Biometric voter registration
 * C
 * Ethical regulator
 * Start
 * Explainable Artificial Intelligence
 * C
 * Panguana
 * B
 * Dom Pedro Hotels & Golf Collection
 * C
 * Ali Al-Rthoom
 * Stub
 * Khaled Al-Radaideh
 * Stub
 * Mahmoud Shawkat
 * Stub
 * Issa Nafesh
 * Stub
 * TIP TIG
 * Start
 * Enoch Adu
 * Start
 * Piotr Paweł Morta
 * Start
 * Financial Talent
 * Start
 * ThirdHome
 * Start
 * N Srinivas Rao
 * GA
 * Witten Women's Protest
 * C
 * Constantin Regamey
 * Start
 * Mortgage origination
 * C
 * Erry Yulian Triblas Adesta
 * C
 * }
 * Rentier, I'm pinging as he's been making a recent effort to provide a second objective look at recent AfC accepts from a NPP standpoint, and might find this useful. Interestingly enough, a lot of his work demonstrates why I think the double review system is important. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , despite not knowing precisely your thoughts on the subject, I also think a double review system is important. The stages as I see them would basically be - 1) AfC: is it ok for the main space? 2) NPP: how can it be further improved and cross linked to relevant projects? A skeptic looking at my questions up there might be worried that I was looking for a pile of articles to just click through, however such is not the case. I still think the AfC articles can benefit from critical review, but also am interested to have the list available to NPPers as it might quickly knock a chunk out of the backlog if people, such as myself, are attracted to the idea of reviewing articles, which have already earned some form of merit via a creation process. Edaham (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ThirdHome
 * Start
 * N Srinivas Rao
 * GA
 * Witten Women's Protest
 * C
 * Constantin Regamey
 * Start
 * Mortgage origination
 * C
 * Erry Yulian Triblas Adesta
 * C
 * }
 * Rentier, I'm pinging as he's been making a recent effort to provide a second objective look at recent AfC accepts from a NPP standpoint, and might find this useful. Interestingly enough, a lot of his work demonstrates why I think the double review system is important. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , despite not knowing precisely your thoughts on the subject, I also think a double review system is important. The stages as I see them would basically be - 1) AfC: is it ok for the main space? 2) NPP: how can it be further improved and cross linked to relevant projects? A skeptic looking at my questions up there might be worried that I was looking for a pile of articles to just click through, however such is not the case. I still think the AfC articles can benefit from critical review, but also am interested to have the list available to NPPers as it might quickly knock a chunk out of the backlog if people, such as myself, are attracted to the idea of reviewing articles, which have already earned some form of merit via a creation process. Edaham (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Erry Yulian Triblas Adesta
 * C
 * }
 * Rentier, I'm pinging as he's been making a recent effort to provide a second objective look at recent AfC accepts from a NPP standpoint, and might find this useful. Interestingly enough, a lot of his work demonstrates why I think the double review system is important. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , despite not knowing precisely your thoughts on the subject, I also think a double review system is important. The stages as I see them would basically be - 1) AfC: is it ok for the main space? 2) NPP: how can it be further improved and cross linked to relevant projects? A skeptic looking at my questions up there might be worried that I was looking for a pile of articles to just click through, however such is not the case. I still think the AfC articles can benefit from critical review, but also am interested to have the list available to NPPers as it might quickly knock a chunk out of the backlog if people, such as myself, are attracted to the idea of reviewing articles, which have already earned some form of merit via a creation process. Edaham (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , despite not knowing precisely your thoughts on the subject, I also think a double review system is important. The stages as I see them would basically be - 1) AfC: is it ok for the main space? 2) NPP: how can it be further improved and cross linked to relevant projects? A skeptic looking at my questions up there might be worried that I was looking for a pile of articles to just click through, however such is not the case. I still think the AfC articles can benefit from critical review, but also am interested to have the list available to NPPers as it might quickly knock a chunk out of the backlog if people, such as myself, are attracted to the idea of reviewing articles, which have already earned some form of merit via a creation process. Edaham (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with and  about the current peer review idea. There have been some outright embarrassments coming out of AfC. For the most part we get it right, but the bad ones are usually strikingly so, and often are moved by a user who's just fed up with AfC and wants to fast-pass it to meet their client's deadline. Also, and this is just my view, NPP and AfC are of slightly different mindsets and techniques. For instance, we (usually) don't tag articles (although maybe we probably should), we simply decline them. I'm up to sending a few AfC approvals a day to AfD, today having two CSDs. All that to say, I like the system how it is, and I appreciate the NPP safety net. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ )  talk  03:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * AfC was intended to be only the most preliminary of filters. It's primary use is by new editors, and at least 3/4 of the current submissions are at least somewhat promotional. The role of AfC is to remove the contributions which are unimprovable, while simultaneously helping improve the others. It's intended to pass everything for which there's a chance of an  article with some rational chance of acceptance. It is only supposed to watch for the problems that would be fatal -- copyvio,advertising, hclear lack of potential notability , duplication,and so forth. It's not inteded to mark the usual problems for further editing, to make sure there are sufficient links, to add proper categories.  At NPP, we try to be more complete. The hope is that if the impossible article are removed at AfC, then we will have perhaps half the cvolume at NPP that we used to have--and that seems to be about the current result.
 * I've tried to do both levels of screening at once, but it doesn't work well. And I haven't seen it work well for others, especially those with relatively little experience. The general level of accuracy at all WP processes mis such that we can only have it reach a satisfactory level of freedom from error by havinga multi-step process.
 * But we do need to indicate at NPP that an article came from AFC. The additional information is helpful.  DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)
Excellent insights into practices about which I fear some editors are very naïve. Hoping this turns into a proposal which I can then support. KJP1 (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, I agree. Thanks for the words of support. Rentier (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability
With this edit], I PRODed the article. the PROD was removed by the author  without  addressing  the isues  on  his insistance that 'all professors ar notable'. A case for AfD? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , I am hesitant to nominate any articles about academics, especially female ones, for deletion. They tend to be kept on the flimsiest of reasons. WP:PROF #1 tends to be interpreted so liberally that it makes the remaining eight criteria redundant. Let's see what DGG says.. Rentier (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I share your  concerns. Wikipedia is supposed to  have the same rules for  every one so  even though  I am a strong, and sometimes active  supporter of the 'Women in Red' project, I  don't  think gender can really  be an argument. As you say, we need  to  chime in  here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * A woman or other member of a group discriminated against can be notable if they are the first in their field to overcome a major barrier, or in some cases to even have participated in a profession when it was in general closed to them. (I'd consider the first woman physician in the US not just notable but famous,   the first woman in a particular state possibly notable. But this has to be used sparingly--the first woman surgeon, pediatrician  etc. in a particular state does not necessarily warrant an article. Nor would I generally use it for anything after the early 20th century. I  would use it more widely as time goes back.
 * As for "all professors", that has never been accepted at afd, but it is a rational basis for removing a prod, to test the individual case at AfD. . Informally, all full professors at major universities have been found notable, except where there was some special prejudice (such as scientists who also espoused some aspect of pseudoscience). I personally would expand it to Associate Professors at the most important universities, as such appointments are not made except to people expected to be experts in their field, but there is no consensus for it.  DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , when I create articles about Fellow of the Royal Society, who are usually at the very top of their fields, it's often difficult to locate secondary sources that contain any prose about the researcher. For subjects such as Henriette Harich-Schwarzbauer, there are no such sources. Apart from one statement ("first woman to be appointed Professor of Classical philology" at Graz) sourced to German Wikipedia and not really supported by that source, it's basically a CV based on a combination of primary sources and computer-generated databases. I am undecided whether such articles are a net benefit for the encyclopedia (they contain very little knowledge, are almost never read, increase maintenance burden, are a magnet for COI editors), but I can't help thinking that PROF #1 demands stronger evidence of significance than the number of library holdings. However, with WP:NFOOTY being what it is, I don't think the notability standards for academics are among Wikipedia's top problems. Rentier (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the reason for the WP:PROF criterion 3, to make sure such articles were never deleted. More generally, an official CV + citation or worldcat records is enough to show being recognized as an authority. That's why we have WP:PROF in the first place, to indicate that secondary sources aren't necessary. Back in 2006/7 when I came here, WP:PROF was just beginning to be accepted. For those who didn't , we argued that GScholar and WorldCat were reliable secondary sources, and the discussion of a scholars articles by other scholars in the articles that cited them were substantial independent sources. (I tried to make it clear that if we really carried that standard as far as made sense, we could show that anyone who had published an academic book that got reviewed of even a few papers that got discussed would be notable, and this would include even most assistant professors. I like to think that the great inclusivity that would be permitted by taking WP:GNG at its face value would give results so distant from the general view of notability, led people to  accept  that WP:PROF was preferable. (and I should mention that in the first few years there was a very strong anti-establisment bias at WP, and that included the academic establishment. All my life had been devoted to supporting as a librarian the traditional academic establishment, and I took that as a challenge. (It's not the whole world, to be sure, but I still think that  it--along with the creative arts--is the most important part of it).
 * The deWP, in contrast, had no anti-academic bias. It accepted the traditional Germanic view that showing someone was an accepted academic authority was the highest possible praise. It therefore made no particular effort beyond showing that one had a senior academic position, and nobody there has ever challenged it. This did indeed some difficulties in moving their articles to enWP, and I normally try to expand them a little so they appear more in line with our usual standards.
 * In determining the importance of someone;s academic work, the extent to which it is read and used is relevant. Reviews tend to be rather formalized, and in the humanities basically show competence, but not anything really special.What in the US at present does show something special is the mere fact that the book was  accepted by an academic publisher. Their standards of review are normally far higher than journal articles--which is rational, considering the costs of production. What library holdings show is the general interest in the work. Academic libraries buy books primarily by faculty recommendations--in the best funded libraries, such as the one I was associated with (Princeton), we never waited for actual recommendations,  but bought any serious academic book within the general fields of interests of the university, with the goal of ensuring it would be on the shelves before any of the faculty came to request it. The really best standard for library holdings, which I have used is esoteric fields collected by few libraries, is to show that the book is the most widely held one on the topic--that;s an excellent indication of  being an authority.
 * The reason this works, is that the academic profession has its own standards of importance, and the way we judge it is designed to match theirs. They go by publications, taking account carefully of where they are published.
 * In some fields, even fields I have no personal interest in at all, thee are similar standards. Athletes are judged by international competitions, popular musicians by charting, politicians by being elected. Even fields for which I have utter contempt, if they have consistent internal standards, I think it is reasonable to accept them. The only way of judging that makes no sense at all is the GNG, which is entirely an artificial function of public relations activity, and not just irrelevant to encyclopedic standards, but directly opposed to them.  DGG ( talk ) 09:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughts and the broader context. That's a lot for me to reflect on. Rentier (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

About Accelo
Hi Rentier,

I saw that the article for Accelo had been deleted and your message left on my page concerning a COI in the creation of the page. I am not under the payroll of Accelo and I have not been advised by the business to create this page. I have used Accelo at a previous company to manage my work and decided that it would be a fun project to create a page for the business. I'm rather obsessive so any deletions that were made I attempted to counter. I'm keen on editing more pages and hopefully creating more in the future although I'd appreciate advice on how this page may be approved upon so that it does not face another deletion.

Best,

Indycould (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , it seems the Accelo lacks notability and cannot have an article at this time. If you disagree, the sure way to demonstrate notability is to find multiple high-quality sources that discuss the company in some depth and are independent from it and from each other. Rentier (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, I'll see if I can rewrite the article only using independent and more credible sources. Would it be alright if I were to ask you to look over the next draft once completed? Indycould (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, feel free to. You might want to discuss the sources first, because if the sources are not acceptable, writing the article is going to be a futile task. Rentier (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Would it be appropriate to link a few here? Indycould (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , yes, not a problem. Rentier (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Alright here are a few sources that would work well for an article on Accelo. Keen to hear your thoughts on the credibility of these.
 * *http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/4043663/wollongong-cbds-hidden-slice-of-silicon-valley/
 * *http://goingconcern.com/adapting-agile-project-management-your-accounting-firm/
 * *https://www.denverpost.com/2018/01/18/accelo-denver-jobs/
 * *https://smallbiztrends.com/2016/06/online-bill-generator.html
 * *https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/09/22/1131535/0/en/Accelo-Becomes-a-HubSpot-Connect-Program-Partner-Enabling-Integrated-Marketing-and-Service-Operations-Automation.html
 * Indycould (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

unfortunately, I don't think it would work. Here's my assessment of the sources according to my understanding of the current standards: Based on my experience with the deletion process, I believe that an article based on those sources would not survive an articles for deletion discussion. There are no absolutes on Wikipedia, but historically, my vote has matched the consensus 94.2% of the time. Rentier (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * illawarramercury - contributes little to notability (local news section of a local newspaper)
 * goingconcern - no depth, not reliable, so doesn't contribute to notability (looks like a "contributor network" without editorial control)
 * denverpost.com - this is the strongest source of those you listed, but still not optimal (local scope)
 * smallbiztrends.com - no depth, contributes virtually nothing to notability (inclusions in lists are usually given no weight)
 * globenewswire - not independent, so doesn't contribute to notability (press release)

Liz MacDonald
Hello! I don't understand why you're not happy with Liz MacDonald's page. She is notable enough and has received $1,000,000 funding to run a large scale citizen science project. Not many people have that. Jesswade88 (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)§
 * Notability aside, I'm outraged at the way you are building articles based on primary sources. For example, I have no idea how you get from "My mentor convinced me to take just one more physics class and then one more, and here I am." to "Her mentor, Ruth Skoug, encouraged her to remain in research". Rentier (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No reason to be "outraged". Also, this is one article - I rarely cite interviews. Pretty sure " I dreaded physics class. But I had a fabulous mentor (Ruth Skoug, a scientist now at Los Alamos National Laboratory) who studied auroras and opened my eyes to research. Auroras were beautiful and complex, and the research about them was tangible and had practical applications. I was drawn to auroras for all of these reasons. My mentor convinced me to take just one more physics class and then one more, and here I am." could be summarised in "Her mentor, Ruth Skoug, encouraged her to remain in research", but if that was the sentence that made you query notability, feel free to remove it. Jesswade88 (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Lidov-Kozai
I am happy both with Kozai-Lidov (because this is an alphabetic order) and Lidov-Kozai (because this is fair). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slow1 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will move the article to "Kozai-Lidov mechanism". Would you be interested in collaborating on the article's scientific content? Rentier (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages! ACTRIAL:
 * ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing
 * Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines
 * The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking  place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
 * While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arndt von Haeseler has been accepted
 Arndt von Haeseler, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! &raquo; Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  13:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Arndt_von_Haeseler help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Topic classification in NPP Browser
Hi -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm a new product manager at WMF. I'm currently working on a potential improvement to the Articles for Creation (AfC) process that I posted about here, and that's being discussed on the talk page.

One of the leading ideas for improvement is to help AfC reviewers with expertise in a given topic to find drafts in that topic, since those reviewers will be able to more accurately and quickly establish notability. Some NPP reviewers in the conversation have pointed out your useful NPP Browser tool, which appears to classify articles into topics. I would love to hear more about the tool, but I do have one main question. How does your tool do that? Does it use categories that have been applied to the article? Or WikiProjects? I wasn't able to find documentation n the tool, but if that exists, I'm happy to read it. Thank you, and please feel free to join the conversation on that talk page. As someone who has helped NPP reviewers prioritize their work, I'm sure we could use your input on doing something similar for AfC.

-- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out. I have replied on the project talk page. Rentier (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Something like this or this might be useful. The MediaWiki API isn't that nice when it comes to spitting out all the metadata made available by PageTriage, you will have to make multiple queries. MER-C 15:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing pages
Hi Rentier, Thanks for the fast reply, I'll be writing the Kozai mechanism page soon. I have a question using images and copyrights. I guess I can use images I made myself. What about images that appear in published papers (including paper I've co-authored)? Which kind of permissions required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugeneg88 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The best place to upload images is Wikimedia Commons. The images you made yourself are of course fine, assuming that you haven't transferred the copyright to, for example, a journal. For images that you do not own the copyright to, it would be necessary for the copyright holder to give his consent via email to appropriate channels. I think that generally, to reuse an image from a published paper, you would have to get the journal to email the permission to Wikimedia. Rentier (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive! Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
 * Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: NPPbarnstar SE.png. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: RR3217-0014 100 rubles USSR 1989 Gold avers.png, Swiss-Commemorative-Coin-1991-CHF-250-reverse.png, Coin of Kazakhstan 500Thinker averse.png, US-$1000-SC-1878-FR-346a-PROOF.jpg.
 * Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

How can the Interaction Timeline be useful in reporting to noticeboards?
Hi Rentier,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team built the Interaction Timeline to make it easier to understand how two people interact and converse across multiple pages on a wiki. The tool shows a chronological list of edits made by two users, only on pages where they have both made edits within the provided time range. Our goals are to assist users to make well informed decisions in incidents of user misconduct and to keep on-wiki discussions civil and focused on evidence.

We're looking to add a feature to the Interaction Timeline that makes it easy to post statistics and information to an on-wiki discussion about user misconduct. We're discussing possible wikitext output on the project talk page, and we invite you to participate! Thank you, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust &#38; Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers. Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
 * June backlog drive


 * New technology, new rules
 * New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
 * Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
 * Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.


 * Editathons
 * Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Signpost
 * The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

URL for NPP browser
Hello, is it possible to get unique URL for search query on NPP browser (q=india, q=kolkata) etc, so that I can regularly check those from my toolbox/todo list? --Titodutta (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Added. You can now do, for example, https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/?q=india Rentier (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.


 * Project news
 * The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
 * As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.


 * There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See New pages patrol/Coordination for more info to see if you can help out.


 * Other
 * A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.


 * Moving to Draft and Page Mover
 * Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
 * If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
 * Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
 * The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
 * The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Luboš Motl for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Luboš Motl is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Luboš Motl (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

COI editing advice
Hi. I kindly ask you for your expert advice on Ken Banks article. I asked for several changes to it using COI request form and got a very strange reply. There is a Cambridge Judge Business School website that says “Ken Banks, who was appointed Visiting Fellow in May 2018, is a British award-winning social entrepreneur, mobile technology and global development expert with an undergraduate major in Social Anthropology with Development Studies”. When I asked to add this fact to the article, I got a the reply from the reviewing editor who said that “the provided reference does not state that the subject was appointed Visiting Fellow of the Cambridge Judge Business School per se”. What is wrong with the reference provided? It is the official website of a business school that states that Ken Banks is their Visiting Fellow. I am really puzzled. Please share your thoughts. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Rfassbind. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, (468861) 2013 LU28, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

R fassbind – talk  19:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
 * Backlog


 * Community Wishlist Proposal
 * There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
 * Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!


 * Project updates
 * ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
 * There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.


 * New scripts
 * User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js(info) — A new script created for quickly placing copyvio-revdel on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Hello ,
 * Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
 * Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.


 * If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.


 * We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.


 * With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello ,

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
 * Reviewer of the Year
 * Thanks are also extended for their work to (15,059 reviews),  (12,760reviews),  (9,001reviews),  (8,440reviews),  (8,092reviews),   (5,306reviews),  (4,153 reviews),  (4,016reviews),  and  (3,615reviews)., , , and  have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only sevenmonths, while , with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top100 reviewers.

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
 * Less good news, and an appeal for some help

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
 * Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minutevideo was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Training video

NPP by author
Hey Rentier,

Is User:Rentier/NPP/Unreviewed articles by user up to date? I'm just wondering because it was very helpful before. Is it Quarry-generated?

Many thanks,

 SITH   (talk)   14:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Updated! You can always fetch an up-to-date version from https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/npp-by-user.php Best, Rentier (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

NPP Browser
This may not be possible, but the NPP Browser would be enormously more useful if it had popups for the articles. Otherwise there's no real basis for knowing which ones in a category to look at.  DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be possible. Just to clarify, do you mean popups on, for example, this page: http://139.162.191.26/NPP/public/index.php?by=group&name=Software or somewhere else? Rentier (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind.  DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17


Hello ,


 * News
 * The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.


 * Discussions of interest
 * Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
 * db-blankdraft was merged into G13 (Discussion)
 * A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
 * There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.


 * Reminders
 * NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD  because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.


 * NPP Tools Report
 * Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
 * copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
 * The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828 Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review. Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

NPP Browser
Good morning - just wanted to check on the state and future of the NPP Browser. I gather that the current unavailability is due to the Trusty shutdow ? (not that that conveys a lot of information to me :p) I was just wondering what the situation is going to be like in the near future - has migrated & will be back up, is supposed to function right now but got bollocksed, or some period of unavailability? Cheers! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18


Hello ,

, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
 * Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
 * Reliable Sources for NPP

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
 * Backlog drive coming soon


 * News
 * Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.


 * Discussions of interest
 * A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
 * There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
 * What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

NPP Browser tool
Hello, NPP browser tool is not working anymore. What happened? Whenever I try to visit this link a 503 service unavailable response shows up. Please fix it. Thanks in advance. Masum Reza 📞 05:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019


Hello ,

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important. Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR. The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever. NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so  you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations. Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for  the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging. Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway. School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * QUALITY of REVIEWING
 * Backlog
 * Move to draft
 * Notifying users
 * PERM
 * Other news

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello ,

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
 * Backlog

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
 * Coordinator

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for  making  the occasional  mistake while  others can learn from  their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
 * This month's refresher course

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
 * Deletion tags

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
 * Paid editing


 * Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
 * Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent  enhancements to  the New Pages Feed and  features in the Curation  tool, and there are still more to  come. Due to the wealth  of information  now displayed by  ORES, reviewers are strongly  encouraged to  use the system now rather than Twinkle; it  will  also  correctly  populate the logs.
 * Not English
 * A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
 * Tools

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

NPP browser
Hi Rentier, I frequently use your NPP browser and it's an extremely helpful tool. I was just wondering, does it have the option to sort pages by date created alongside the keyword? I can't spot it, was just wondering if I was overlooking something obvious, cheers. Kosack (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello ,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon. There are now holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action. Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays. Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox. Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards. Admin has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers. Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources. Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13. The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights. There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion. To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting the queue to 0
 * Coordinator
 * This month's refresher course
 * Tools
 * It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
 * It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
 * Reviewer Feedback
 * Second set of eyes
 * 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, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
 * Do be sure to have our talk page  on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
 * Arbitration Committee
 * Community Wish list

New Page Review newsletter December 2019


This year's Reviewer of the Year is. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
 * Reviewer of the Year

Special commendation again goes to who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to and  who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by.
 * Redirect autopatrol

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
 * Source Guide Discussion

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This month's refresher course

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020
Hello ,

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
 * Source Guide Discussion

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
 * Redirects


 * Discussions and Resources
 * There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
 * A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
 * A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
 * A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
 * Refresher

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
Hello ,

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference. In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
 * Your help can make a difference
 * Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
 * Discussions and Resources
 * A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
 * Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
 * A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
 * Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello ,



It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to and  who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to, , and who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
 * Year in review

has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
 * Reviewer of the Year

As a special recognition and thank you has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
 * NPP Technical Achievement Award

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our  Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but  there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

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 or its software. Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Adoption request for tool nppbrowser
Hi Rentier, as you are no longer active among Wikimedia Projects, I would like to adopt your tool called nppbrowser, as it is currently broken. Thanks! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)