User talk:Tutelary/Archive 7

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Belle Delphine
Do the YouTube references absolutely have to be removed? I feel like they have a supporting role and aren't meant to be a primary citation. Personally I think the draft is good enough for mainspace. Aitch &#38; Aitch Aitch (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Aitch & I actually went through the article and replaced one, the other two serve the limited purpose WP:PRIMARY requires. It should be fine. Just submit and I will likely accept. Tutelary (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

Was gud?
Aye 🤪 loll was goin on. Type shi im bored asll n type tryna do sumfin yk? quoranteen got me shlumped 😒 on god........ anyway so u editin? U edit hard asf tho i see. keep it up 👍 rs Bajirao1007 (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
...For your support on Plandemic's talk page. I'm getting very frustrated with Guy's objections to something as innocuous as an infobox. The attempt to delete the article by Slatersteven was an odd move too, but it looks like most of the editors are against that. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ... and once more. After a full day of that ridiculous series of arguments for arguments' sake, my anxiety was getting triggered. I cooled off for the weekend, and responded to Guy one last time. Your efforts are valiant, but it's clear that those editors are denying the article an infobox because they are so offended by the subject that they cannot distinguish the two, nor the difference between arguing for improving the article and supporting/denigrating the article's subject, viz. ultimately accusing the editor (me), of variously bad faith, supporting woo or being a SPA. I am very, very glad I took another day or two off and that you stepped into the breach, because I might have lost my temper once that happened. They didn't even have to look at my edit history. They could have looked at the dozens of articles I've created, listed on my front page, mostly films and video (as I said). Some editors are just stubborn people who cannot admit when they are wrong and are best left to their own devices. It's just not worth it. While the infobox would add to the usefulness of the article, it's not doing any harm that it's not there. That I was reverted for adding one was not so much petty as an honest mistake. As you say, Slatersteven is an unknown. But the others: Guy, especially, its hard to believe he's an admin, or why he has such an axe to grind about infoboxes--some editors really do hate them I guess. Since I started writing articles myself without interruption, I've enjoyed Wikipedia a lot more. I rarely have to get into stupid arguments like this now. No good deed goes unpunished. I wouldn't bother doing an RfC now. The topic looks to me to be already canvassed.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I did my last bit of arguing. And left them a goodbye FU (not really).ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Louis Rossmann


The article Louis Rossmann has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: A few valid sources do not provide an in-depth background info for this person. Furthermore, "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nightvour (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Louis Rossmann for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Louis Rossmann 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/Louis Rossmann 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. Nightvour (talk) 19:15, 22 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)

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 18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Danielle – I hope you're well! Glad to see you're still around. I just wanted to pop by and say that I appreciate your guidance and help six years ago when I first started editing. Your messages from then are a good reminder and model for the kindness with which we should address our newer editors. Best of luck with everything, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 18:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Frankly, it's amazing seeing where you are now. I had a gut feeling that things would turn out well, but I didn't imagine this well. It's amazing that you're a sysop now. I apologize for not !voting in your RfA, I would have definitely voted !support if I did. I'm not sure if I was inactive at the time or just didn't notice. Tutelary (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Living person biographies
May 2021 Hello, I'm Tutelary. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Larry Nassar, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. My edits were to provide a more accurate description. Can you specifically say where that goes against the guidelines for living people? As far as I am concerned it is just a different (and more accurate) descriptor.
 * Hello. I recognize your contribution was made in good faith. I am not going to challenge your revert if you wish to. Ultimately, I believe serial rapist and sex offender summarize it up well, and seems to be the article's stable lead sentence, and has been for months. I change my reason for your reverting your edit for a good faith edit, and apologize for the trouble in this matter. I have stricken the relevant content on your talk page. Tutelary (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2021 (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. 04:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Boo!


Happy Halloween!

Hello : Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween! —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently Special:ListUsers/patroller New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer revoked due to inactivity
Hello Tutelary. This message is to notify you that I have removed your New Page Reviewer user right because you have been inactive for a year or more. This removal is merely procedural in nature and serves to mitigate the potential risks of having inactive accounts retain sensitive permissions. Should you require access again, please make a request at Requests for permissions/New page reviewer. Thank you for your past contributions to the project and best wishes, --Blablubbs (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The tool was useful while I used it, and I enjoyed using it. The more that I think about it, the more I liken it to a tool like WP:TWINKLE where wider access without the use of a user right may be beneficial to the project as a whole. Of course, reviewing articles doesn't require that user right and hence the tool, so I may still review articles even without it. Tutelary (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey Tutelary. I hope everything is okay with you IRL. Hope to see you back soon. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern. I am still keeping watch on certain articles and pages and will contribute at my leisure. Tutelary (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)