User talk:Topcipher/Archives/2017/July

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

Backlog update: Technology update:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
 * Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.
 * Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Page Curation/Suggested improvements
 * The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
 * User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
 * User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:
 * Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Beauty.AI
Hello! I am contacting you with respect to your decision to reject the Beauty.AI draft. I believe that it does, as a concept, fulfill the notability requirements. Namely, this text: "Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject..." I feel this has been fulfilled. It has numerous articles discussing Beauty.AI, its methodology, its flaws, and its impact and contribution to a problem with how bias infects AI.

As far as your unique text, my intention has always been to make it about the contest and not the company, as I do not feel that the company itself is as notable as it is for Beauty.AI. I also feel that independent sources have been acquired in great number. I acknowledge and understand your concerns, but I hope that you may reconsider for these reasons. Thank you for your time. -- Aiconomy (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)