User talk:Tamzin/Archive/Old/8

People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy
Remember this one? :) Drmies (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Haha. Amazing how long some things stick around. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  07:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Memorial Bridge with elephants
I went back and rewrote the bit about the elephant test, and included a cite from Eads Bridge while I was at it. Please check this out and let me know if you feel there's a problem. Or feel free to revert me or modify, as usual. - Denimadept (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem with that, no. I've just tweaked it to include the 112,000 pound figure, which is both important to note and quite interesting. Glad someone took the time to put that section back in. :) I'd've done it myself when I removed the copyvio content, but what can I say, I'm lazy. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  16:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for putting some foreign links on the 87th Academy Awards
I did add a couple more I found, but yeah thanks again! Wgolf (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Main article interwiki
Template:Main article interwiki has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 11:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!
 You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!


 * What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
 * When? June 2015
 * How can you help?
 * 1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
 * 2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
 * 3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Discussion involving transgender issues
You may want to be aware of and possibly join in: Village pump (policy)/Archive 121. Skyerise (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

SFWA
Today I did much work at Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, primarily to complete, link, recover, unify existing references. Along the way I tagged for {citation needed} and {clarify} your July 6 update under bold heading SFWA Board Members.

By the way, do you know whether the officer terms begin in May? --when the bylaws were revised in 2014, i see. If so, we should say in the lead "president of SFWA from May 2015 is Cat Rambo".

By the way2, Talk:Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. --P64 (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Amersandhu


A tag has been placed on User talk:Amersandhu, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cahk (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2016
As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?
 * Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
 * Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
 * Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Scott Kroopf
Sorry, it's my fault. The article wasn't done yet. But, Scott Kroopf has made multiple films in the past, I was just adding that to the Wikipedia page. So sorry. モハメッド一二三 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was a bit hasty on that tagging. I self-reverted. Sorry. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  19:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It's okay. Anyways, I am kind of done, I am looking for more info on him, though. モハメッド一二三 (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

CSS styling in templates
Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Tobias Ellwood
Their is a discussion on the Tobias Ellwood page related to his action. If you think this need to be change please expose your arguments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tobias_Ellwood#Ellwood_gave_mouth-to-mouth_even_though_there_were_plenty_of_healthcare_professionals_around_the_victim --Gagarine (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

CE vs. AD
I see that you are changing time format on Christian "legend" articles from BC/AD to BCE/CE, Wikipedia is written in a neutral prospective, not in an atheist prospective, and BC/AD is still the standard time format. - ZLEA (Talk ,Contribs ) 16:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume you're referring to my edits to Genesis flood narrative. First of all, if you're not aware, Wikipedia has an editorial guideline on AD/BC vs. CE/BCE: MOS:ERA. Per that guideline, the era notation may be changed if there is a reason specific to the article's content and consensus has been sought on the article's talk page. This gets us to two important points of fact: 1) Genesis is not a Christian myth; it is a Jewish one. Yes, it is part of the Christian canon, but it is also part of the Muslim, Baha'i, Rastafari, Druze, Yazidi, etc. canons. It is first and foremost a Jewish myth. 2) CE/BCE is not an "atheist" notation. It is a coëqual alternative to AD/BC under Wikipedia guidelines. And the general practice on Wikipedia is that, when discussing articles relating to religions other than Christianity, we use CE/BCE. See Muhammad, Buddha, Moses, Taoism, etc.
 * I met both of the guideline's requirements: I made an argument for why changing the era made more sense, and I left it open for discussion for three months, during which time no one objected. (I actually was planning on proceeding after a month, but didn't get around to it until January.) If you want to revive that discussion, you're welcome to do so at the talk page. But I would encourage you to read the relevant guidelines first, and to stop viewing this as a matter of identity politics. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  17:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Dr. Stavrula Perutsea Gotsis, MD
Hello PinkAmpersand. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dr. Stavrula Perutsea Gotsis, MD, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject might be important/significant (see also Google News/Books hits for this subject) / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead to allow other editors to participate in this decision. Thank you.  So Why  08:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Evolution Userbox
Crazysane (T/C\D) 17:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

edits
hello. You got it backward. Provably so. If someone is lying saying something is "duplicated" elsewhere in the article when there's literally NO mention anywhere else in the article the name "Terminate the Republicans" it's hard to "assume goo faith" when it's obvious that that's NOT what's really going on here. But more like suppression of sourced facts, per lefty agendas maybe (??) against WP policy. This is ALL OVER THE NEWS, on TV and on the Net. What's valid argument ot remove it?? And no, the only ones truly "edit-warring" and violating WP policy are the suppressors that I'm undoing, and what's to "assume good faith" when they're flat-out LYING when they say "duplicate" when that's simply not true. This is a wiki. No one person owns any article, and no "opinion" is needed to include the sources fact that this perp was part of that FB club. Anyway, I'm not edit-warring, I'm restoring sourced referenced facts THAT EDIT-WARRIORS AND SUPPRESSORS KEEP IDIOTICALLY REMOVING, with literally zero sound argument or rationale for it. There's no mention of this sourced fact anywhere in the article. What is going on now is just SUPPRESSION OF FACTS that you don't like to be revealed. He was part of a FB club called "Terminate the Republicans". Nowhere is that mentioned. Restored. Namarly (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would strongly encourage you to read the following pages WP:Assume good faith, WP:Civility, WP:Wikipedia is not a battleground, and WP:Edit warring. Currently, you're probably going to be blocked for several days over second-offense edit warring. (It doesn't matter if they're edit warring too; two wrongs don't make a right, and the edit warring policy, which I hope you read the last time you were blocked under it, makes this very clear.) However, if you continue to show a battleground mentality and accuse other editors of misconduct without evidence, you will probably find yourself blocked indefinitely. I wouldn't want to see that happen, and that's why I'm encouraging you to read the pages I've just linked to. If you don't think you'll be able to comply with these guidelines, then I'd politely suggest that perhaps this isn't the site for you. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  17:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Reply
Yes, my talkpage has several complaints about my adherence to our MOS. Be a pal and figure out how many of my edits are to capitalization issues (it's a lot), then show the complaints on my TP as a % of those edits. It may cause you to re-evaluate how clever you think you are. Point taken re:Capitol Police, but to say that representatives is a "shared title" and not descriptive is off the mark. There is no title of "Representatives", only "Representative". This is not a shared title because they all represent different things. Further, the does not suddenly make common nouns proper. The Alexandria Police Department is a specific department and is thus capped. The Alexandria police are the police in Alexandria and if that ain't descriptive...well... Primergrey (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * : — PinkAmpers &#38;  ''' ( Je vous invite à me parler )

to
 * : — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ''' ( Je vous invite à me parler )

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I've tried switching (after a few slight tweaks to get it under the character limit), but it's telling me that there are HTML issues. Any idea as to what the problem is? I don't see anything wrong, nor does the W3C markup validator.
 *  — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  18:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 *  — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  18:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. There are several issues here.
 * I failed to escape the ampersand of, so the nonbreaking space was lost.
 * I also didn't escape the ampersand of, but there's no harm in using a native ampersand as itself.
 * I failed to detect that your old signature had an additional lint error, a missing end tag, from the unpaired bolding.
 * I gave you a string that exceeded the limit of 255 characters.

Try this:


 * : — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler ) 

On this page, the talk page link is disabled because this is already your talk page. In some combinations of skins and browsers, such as MonoBook and Firefox, the underlining of links bolded outside the link is thicker than the underlining of links bolded inside the link. To have both links underlined the same in all combinations of skins (excluding MinervaNeue, which doesn't underline links) and browsers, try this:


 * : — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )

—Anomalocaris (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Still won't go through. And as an aside, It's the first half that's supposed to be boldfaced, not the second. (Though, as you allude to, here on my talk page both appear in boldface.) — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  02:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

— PinkAmpers  &  ( Je vous invite à me parler )

It turns out the ampersand really does have to be escaped in the signature line. I have verified that the signature box will accept this:


 * : — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000">( Je vous invite à me parler )

—Anomalocaris (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Had to tweak the boldfacing, but it works now! Thanks so much. I cobbled this thing together way before I knew anything about HTML and CSS, and have known for a while now that it sucks. So I'm glad someone's helped me finally clean it up.— PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000">( Je vous invite à me parler )  15:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Your creation of the Disambiguation page House Resolution 1
There are a few inaccuracies with the page you created today: I acknowledge your recentism argument for not having the page H.R. 1 redirect to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. However, I think it's clear that there are blatant factual errors on the page and the page either needs to be moved or deleted and the content has to be edited for correctness. I hope we can work together to fix this disambiguation page. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 02:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) H.R. 1 does not stand for "House Resolution 1"; it simply stands for "House of Representatives 1". While grammatically incorrect, that is what the House of Representatives has acknowledged as the correct definition. This can be contrasted with "H.Res.", which is the correct abbreviation for "House Resolution" and refers to simple resolutions, documents that if passed only influence the behavior of one chamber of Congress or are mostly symbolic (e.g. commending Super Bowl winners). H.R., meanwhile, refers to bills, that if passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president become valid laws with actual force.
 * 2) Often, the first 20 numbers in the H.R. sequence are saved for use throughout sessions of a Congress. The first ten are assigned to the Speaker of the House and the next ten are to the Minority Leader. This is why the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 has the bill title of H.R. 1 even though it was originally introduced in November of 2017 by Rep. Kevin Brady.
 * Thanks for the catch! To me it seems like this page can live on at a better title. Since no one ever refers to these bills as "House of Representatives X," I submit that the best title would be, per WP:COMMONNAME, simply H.R. 1. I've put in a G6 request to reverse the redirect, and assuming it goes through I'll tag the old title as r from incorrect name. And I'll clean up the lede in a moment to address your concerns. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  03:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Adminship
Have to ask, I've seen you around for years and you always seem to have an abundance of clue ... have you thought about running for RfA? You'd then be able to take a look at the edit filters and manage them without having to wait for somebody else to jump to it. Okay, you could just ask for the Edit Filter Manager right directly, but I'm sure there are other things you could do as well. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * +1 to this. I've appreciated your work at RfD recently and think you would make a great admin. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh, I'm surprised to hear this, especially from two sysops. I don't know, I've avoided looking at any RfAs for a good while now, because of how toxic it was when last I spent time there. Is it still as bad now as it once was? Because I got caught up in a lot of drama in my early years here, and I'm worried that will come back to bite me. I was 16 when I created my account, and I'm 21 now, and I was undiagnosed bipolar II back then, and I'm medicated now, so I'm pretty confident that I won't return to those mistakes; but I'm not sure that I'll be able to convince RfA !voters of that fact. Or have the days passed where they would dig through your contribs from 5 years ago? Because I really would like to be an admin. I was the first (?) person to be elected an admin on Wikidata without having been directly appointed by WMDE first. I won adminship by a !vote of 34-0 there, and I wish it were as easy here. I was only an admin there for a year and change, but I remember how nice it was having all those buttons available to me. So yeah... idk. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000">( Je vous invite à me parler )  18:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you get out what you put in - the ideal candidate has 50 FAs, 1000 AfDs all of which agree with the result but none of which are "me too nominations", not a single declined speedy, millions of AIV reports, an inability to say "boo" to a goose. The pragmatic reality falls short of that somewhat (I can count the number of editors who've worked FAC and AIV on the fingers of one hand, for starters). If you read all the successful RfAs over the past two years and have reached a similar level, you should have no problems. Sure you always get one or two idiots, but they tend to be shot down by other people - provided nobody makes an oppose that isn't met with ridicule, you'll be alright.
 * I see at Articles for deletion/AIOps you've had a perfectly civil disagreement with another editor which is what I like to see in discussions - no name calling, just polite respect for each others' views. Articles for deletion/Stavrula Gotsis was an AfD started by an editor declining your A7 tag, which was then unanimously closed as "delete", but the other CSDs look justifiable to me. In terms of temperament, I think you explained it well yourself. Anyway, the real long-term civility cases we have are people in middle age and upward who are just far too old to mature and change. Probably the best thing to do is file a poll at WP:ORCP to see what other regulars think. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hello PinkAmpersand. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

Allison Williams (disambiguation)
Thank you for working on disambiguations, and sorry that I had to deny what seemed to you a clear case. Please see Talk:Allison Williams (disambiguation). &mdash; Sebastian 09:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you use WP:RM to settle this debate of who the primary topic is. Iffy★Chat -- 09:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, PVH. First off, just so you know, new topics on a talk page should always go at the bottom. One easy way to do that is clicking the "new section" button. Anyways, to answer your question: You only need to use your signature on talk pages (like this one). You should never use your signature when editing an article. If you forget to sign something on a talk page, it's not the end of the world: Our helpful friend SineBot will come along and take care of it. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000">( Je vous invite à me parler )  02:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Kind welcome
Hi PinkAmpersand! Thanks so much for your kind welcome. This is going to be fun. Daddy Beluga (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive IP
IP 2600:387:0:803:0:0:0:62 is attempting to vandalize your user page, but all of the edits were disallowed. See IP's filter log for details. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Some teenager, all alone on a Friday night. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.
PS: This is the only button I saw, I hope it's the correct one. I'm on my mobile, and this was the only option I see. Thank you for info and the links! Very appreciative! PVHenry (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: New Year Backlog Drive results:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
 * We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
 * We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
 * Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

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.

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing
Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how infobox ship is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:
 * WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 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.

Deletion tags
 * Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:
 * A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons
 * There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. 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.

Paid editing - new policy
 * Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, 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. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

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.

Not English News Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 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, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
 * Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
 * The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

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.

?
Take it to talk. Don't edit war on a guideline. For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning
read WP:PGCHANGE

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 28 July 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.

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)

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Natalie Khawam


A tag has been placed on Natalie Khawam, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:33, 4 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)

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)

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)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello PinkAmpersand! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  17:06, 1 August 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)

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)

"H'w'd" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect H&. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesome Hwyh  20:51, 2 May 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)