User talk:VQuakr/Archives/2018

Just wondering is you are still here.
Hello VQuakr Haven't been on Wikipedia for a long time and just wanted to say hello! During a long illness and down time I started to dig through many boxes of material regarding Genisco and two other qui tam cases that tie into each other. Health is Wealth, stay well.... Qui Tam Relator 01:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs)


 * Hi, good to hear from you again. Yes, I am still around; very busy with real-world activities so I have been pretty inactive here. I hope you are feeling better now, and echo your wishes of good health. Primary sources such as court documents and internal company memos should be used on the encyclopedia sparingly since we primarily work with sources that have been previously published by an editorially-vetted source, but there certainly is a lot of room for improvement at the Genisco article! VQuakr (talk) 17:35, 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.

Astrophysical plasma
Perhaps you might comment on a disagreement at. Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Dispute on Gun violence in the United States
Regarding the comment you left on my talk page: I would like to give you a chance to explain (preferably on Talk:Gun violence in the United States) why reverting my edit, which I had already restored once and explained twice at the time you reverted it, should be taken as an act of good faith per WP:AGF. It's my position that you and one other editor reverting my change for reasons that are basically a matter of opinion, without any attempt at discussion on the article talk page, does not constitute consensus against my change. I'd also like to hear why you can't tolerate a perfectly relevant picture of a makeshift memorial to the worst act of gun violence in (non-warfare or civil unrest) American history, and would rather see a meaninglessly irrelevant cartoon of the McKinley assassination as the first image on Gun violence in the United States. Darkest Tree  Talk  04:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

G1
"Patent nonsense in userspace that is submitted to AfC affects only the user that wrote it" semtemce at CSD makes no sense. I think you mean that by submitting the page to AfC the user wastes other editor's time. It would have been smoother to just make the change and see if anyone objected. Will see where the discussion goes now. Legacypac (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that one didn't translate from my brain to my fingers well, thanks. VQuakr (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

DESIST
DESIST I want no further contact with you. Further interaction will be considered a WP:PA. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't get to keep violating policy just because you've attempted to silence those calling you out on it. VQuakr (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Really. Same could be said of you, but what has any of this to do with you at all? Your not my mother and your not the protagonist. Please avoid me in future. Clearly F@%k off, means f@%k off. Do so, else it becomes Harassment. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, probably a policy you should read before linking: one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment....Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly. VQuakr (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please take Elsa's advice in Frozen. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So, part of not interacting with another editor would be to stop interacting with them, not making "cute" frozen references here. And - be aware that changing fuck to "F@%k" does not change that you're coming at another editor with "Fuck off". "Drop it" is probably decent advice all around. SQL Query me!  03:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * full disclosure, I've invited them to "drop it" here in similar but unbowdlerized terms, in response to their bullying of a newbie so I can't take any exception to their reciprocation provided it is constrained to user talk space. VQuakr (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2018
Read this in another language • Subscription list for the English Wikipedia • Subscription list for the multilingual edition Did you know? Did you know that you can now use the visual diff tool on any page?



Sometimes, it is hard to see important changes in a wikitext diff. This screenshot of a wikitext diff (click to enlarge) shows that the paragraphs have been rearranged, but it does not highlight the removal of a word or the addition of a new sentence.

If you enable the Beta Feature for "", you will have a new option. It will give you a new box at the top of every diff page. This box will let you choose either diff system on any edit.

Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.

In the visual diff, additions, removals, new links, and formatting changes will be highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.



This screenshot shows the same edit as the wikitext diff. The visual diff highlights the removal of one word and the addition of a new sentence. An arrow indicates that the paragraph changed location.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode, which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and improving the visual diff tool. Their work board is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor, and improving the visual diff tool.

Recent changes

 * The 2017 wikitext editor is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. It has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools.  The team have been comparing the performance of different editing environments.  They have studied how long it takes to open the page and start typing.  The study uses data for more than one million edits during December and January.  Some changes have been made to improve the speed of the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual editor.  Recently, the 2017 wikitext editor opened fastest for most edits, and the 2010 WikiEditor was fastest for some edits.  More information will be posted at Contributors/Projects/Editing performance.
 * The visual diff tool was developed for the visual editor. It is now available to all users of the visual editor and the 2017 wikitext editor.  When you review your changes, you can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs.  You can also enable the new Beta Feature for "Visual diffs".  The Beta Feature lets you use the visual diff tool to view other people's edits on page histories and Special:RecentChanges.
 * Wikitext syntax highlighting is available as a Beta Feature for both the 2017 wikitext editor and the 2010 wikitext editor.
 * The citoid service automatically translates URLs, DOIs, ISBNs, and PubMed id numbers into wikitext citation templates. This tool has been used at the English Wikipedia for a long time.  It is very popular and useful to editors, although it can be tricky for admins to set up.  Other wikis can have this service, too.  Please read the instructions. You can ask the team to help you enable citoid at your wiki.

Let's work together

 * The team is planning a presentation about editing tools for an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation metrics and activities meeting.
 * Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and other communities may have the visual editor made available by default to contributors. If your community wants this, then please contact Dan Garry.
 * The  block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens.  This makes footnotes easier to read.  This has already been enabled at the English Wikipedia.  If you want columns for a long list of footnotes on this wiki, you can use either   or the plain (no parameters)   template.  If you edit a different wiki, you can request multi-column support for your wiki.
 * If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!

—User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

OK
Hi VQuakr, I saw you reverted my edit and said it was discussed on the talk page. I looked and couldn't find the relevant discussion. I do see discussion of the many sources that describe it as Constitutionalist. And I've seen they are non partisan. Other than the Salon article are there sources that describe them as far right? I couldn't find that descriptor in the other source cited for that bit. That's why I changed it to militia, which is in the sources. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * both citations currently supporting that description in the lede use the term "far-right". If you are having trouble with access to the Chicago Tribune source I can provide quotes. See Talk:Oath_Keepers/Archive_1 for previous discussion. VQuakr (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon: Jewish Women Artists (March 8, Oregon Jewish Museum)
On March 8 (International Women's Day), the Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education and artist Shoshana Gugenheim will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about Jewish women artists. Click here for more information. You can also express interest or suggest articles to create or improve here. This event is free and open to the public, and will serve as both a public art action and a public educational program. Participation is welcome in person and remotely (for those outside of Portland). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon (March 10, Pacific Northwest College of Art)
On Saturday, March 10 (11am to 4pm), the Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about art, feminism, and women. You can read details on the Facebook event page, or this Wikipedia meetup page. Tutorials for new editors, reference materials, childcare, and refreshments will be provided. Bring your laptop, power cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. For the editing-averse, you're welcome to stop by to show your support! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:50, 9 March 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.

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon (April 13, University of Oregon)
On Friday, April 13 (3pm to 6pm), the University of Oregon will be hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon to create and improve Wikipedia articles about art and feminism. You can learn more at the Dashboard page, or our Wikipedia meetup page. Tutorials for new editors, reference materials, and snacks will be provided. Please bring your laptop, power cord and ideas for entries that need updating or creation. For the editing-averse, we urge you to stop by to show your support and have snacks! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

We write in summary style
Maybe here you'll get where I'm coming from. I've had edits reverted in the past that were much smaller than that and one of the claims made was that because I hadn't worked on a good or featured article, I supposedly didn't understand what should or shouldn't be included. So when I did the summarized edits, I tried to follow how the foreign policy sections of the George W. Bush and Barack Obama articles looked, both of which being considered at least good articles. And that 30k that you apparently think was so large was smaller than the 50k that was on both of those articles for that section. All I'm saying is I feel as if I went out of my way to follow guidelines and how "we" do things here just to get slapped in the face by having every single thing I did shot off like I was spamming the site. And the fact that you said the article was already too long when I don't see any fuss over the sizes of the longer Bush Jr., Obama, and Trump articles suggested to me that rules were going to be created on the spot just to try and justify whatever was done to my content. - Informant16 14 May 2018
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. George H. W. Bush should include a summary of Presidency of George H. W. Bush, which should in turn include a summary Foreign policy of the George H. W. Bush administration. You are multiple levels down the hierarchy of summary; the 30 kB you added to the existing summary was way, way, way too much. It is feedback from a collaborative editing community, not a slap. VQuakr (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it feedback to delete every single thing I wrote? He didn't even keep the link to the main article for foreign policy. It was a complete and utter blanking. And with all due respect, I don't get any community input on any article I edit other than deleting and illogical arguments that try to dismiss facts by throwing up links such as WP:OTHERSTUFF because the person knows the merit of what I said, which is that similar lengths were applied on supposed higher level quality articles, wasn't false. Why would I not look for inspiration on my material from what has been assessed by your supposed collaborative editing community as the greatest of the greatest. If 30 kB is so awful, then what amount do you propose can be added? - Informant16 4 May 2018
 * I already gave my opinion on the article talk page. I also went ahead and restored the "main" tag. I don't really see the utility of continuing discussion here. VQuakr (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But you do see the utility in sticking an edit war threat tag on my page in spite of fact that I left the article in the same state as the user that you were defending. So he can leave the page without a main tag but I can't? At least you've informed me that contributing is awful seeing as how I'm being punished for it. - Informant16 14 May 2018
 * Oh, get over yourself. This was disruption to make a point and nothing else, and you were properly warned to desist. VQuakr (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies
I see you just archived a discussion I commented on in HIV/AIDS denialism. I am afraid that I got confused about what month it was - looking at the page history, I thought it was April and that the reverting back and forth was ongoing, so I was attempting to explain to the IP why the changes he/she was making weren't appropriate. Having looked at it again with fresh eyes, I realise that all happened a month ago, and so my putting a new comment on looks like I'm trying to open up and argument that has already settled down. Apologies for that, it wasn't my intent.Girth Summit (talk) 07:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. The IP has kept pinging the talk page intermittently for weeks now; it is pretty clear they just want to push their pet fringe theory not improve the article. VQuakr (talk) 15:12, 16 May 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.

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.

AR-15
Please do not touch other editors talk page comments, I am sure you know this is not allowed. Also you collapsed the statements from the wiki guidelines on this issue to follow. You stated they were quotes, I assume you thought they were going in the article?

You have made your views on the quotes well known and I also agree with you for the most part. But you can not put the cart before the hoarse so we address the citaions first, then whats left we can trim or remove quotes. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand they are quotes from WP. They are also unnecessary; just link the relevant section. Collapsing them improves the readability of the section. You have been warned repeatedly about WP:THREAD violations, so continuing to fail to follow that standard is pretty clearly just disruption at this point. VQuakr (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:THREAD is not Wikipedia policy or guidelines. It is just a recommendation. So there was no need to remove his comments. Afootpluto (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It did seem a bit much for such a minor affair. There is no sanctions from said violations. It would appear something else is afoot. If you would like to discuss anything please feel free to email, post on my talk page, ping me from yours. I am sure we can resolve whatever is causing this tension. -72bikers (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:DISRUPT is the relevant guideline. On complex talk threads, is it disruptive to ignore threading practice because it makes the discussion difficult to follow. You've been around plenty long to know this (and in any case kept doing it after being notified), so you either don't care or are incompetent. Out of curiosity, which is it? VQuakr (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow you have a lot of hostility. I will again state the obvious, it would appear something else is afoot. By all means if you feel I violated any policy feel free to bring to a admins attention. Any attempt to anger me into some childish argument is fruitless. Wish you well, hope you work out whatever is at the root of this. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We'll go with intentionally disruptive, then; incompetent doesn't really fit. VQuakr (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

MfD of User:Piotrus/South Korean scandals
There is an ongoing discussion on whether to delete User:Piotrus/South Korean scandals, which contains copyright violations, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Piotrus/South Korean scandals (2nd nomination). Since I see you were involved in the previous MfD, your input would be appreciated. Thank you. Nardog (talk) 04:00, 27 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)

DS Alert: Gun control
Just a reminder, since you haven't been notified in the past year. –dlthewave ☎ 22:15, 26 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)

Editing News #2—2018
Read this in another language •  Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter  •  Subscription list on the English Wikipedia

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Tap on the pencil icon to start editing. The page will probably open in the wikitext editor.

You will see another pencil icon in the toolbar. Tap on that pencil icon to the switch between visual editing and wikitext editing.



Remember to publish your changes when you're done.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has wrapped up most of their work on the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual diff tool. The team has begun investigating the needs of editors who use mobile devices. Their work board is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are fixing bugs and improving mobile editing.

Recent changes

 * The Editing team has published an initial report about mobile editing.
 * The Editing team has begun a design study of visual editing on the mobile website. New editors have trouble doing basic tasks on a smartphone, such as adding links to Wikipedia articles.  You can read the report.
 * The Reading team is working on a separate mobile-based contributions project.
 * The 2006 wikitext editor is no longer supported. If you used that toolbar, then you will no longer see any toolbar.  You may choose another editing tool in your editing preferences, local gadgets, or beta features.
 * The Editing team described the history and status of VisualEditor in this recorded public presentation (starting at 29 minutes, 30 seconds).
 * The Language team released a new version of Content Translation (CX2) last month, on International Translation Day. It integrates the visual editor to support templates, tables, and images.  It also produces better wikitext when the translated article is published.

Let's work together

 * The Editing team wants to improve visual editing on the mobile website.  Please read their ideas and tell the team what you think would help editors who use the mobile site.
 * The Community Wishlist Survey begins next week.
 * If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly.  We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation.

— Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 1 November 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)

Oumuamua
There are many formulas and numbers in the article, why did you remove mines? --Jumpjack2 (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * as I noted in my edit summary, we don't do original research. There were other issues (ie the poor quality of the writing and excessive weight on the Bialy paper) but this was the main one. VQuakr (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They're facts, explanations and citations, not research. Although you personally don't like them or how they're written, this does not mean they are note useful to an encyclopedia user looking for scientific data rather than sci-fi hyoptesis. I think your edit caused a damage to Wikipedia. --Jumpjack2 (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Douma
Hi, VQakr Although I strongly disagreed with the most recent revert, I left it intact except for one word, 'suspected'. That word is in the BBC reference used as evidence for the text, so, particularly in the light of the OPCW interim report, I am really at a complete loss as to how there is any possible justification for its non-inclusion. Perhaps you can explain? Also, given that I have shown a readiness to take on board explanations for reverts and have tried to adapt my edits in the light of points made, it is difficult to see why I am being singled out as engaging in an edit war. Have you sent the same message out to those who have made wholesale reverts of my very reasonable edits and are you involved in an edit war with me?Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I gave you the reminder because you repeated a contested edit. No one else did that, so no one else got warned. The BBC article was from the day after the attack; there have been multiple confirmations since then. This really should be being discussed on the article talk page, but briefly - whether or not a nerve agent was used, some sort of chemical caused the scores of fatalities. Therefore, "suspected" is an unneeded qualifier that violates WP:NPOV. VQuakr (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a circular argument. I was contesting the previous edit, which was then repeated, so others, including yourself, have repeated a contested edit. I understand the article was from the day of the attack, so if it is no longer appropriate, why continue to use it? If it is a valid reference then so is the word 'suspected'. The most authoritative view is provided by the OPCW interim report, which does not conclude that a chemical attack took place; instead it refers to "alleged sites" and "alleged incidents" and says "This document contains an update on the work of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria (FFM) regarding the alleged use of toxic chemicals as a weapon in Douma". The report found no evidence of sarin (as claimed by the rebels, various NGOs, the USA and others) and the chlorinated organic chemicals found have many domestic, agricultural and medical uses, so their presence does not prove their use in a chemical attack. Saying that suspected' is "an unneeded qualifier that violates WP:NPOV seems utterly counterfactual. You say “whether or not a nerve agent was used, some sort of chemical caused the scores of fatalities”, but provide no evidence for this. Do you know something the OPCW doesn't or have you had a sneak preview of the final report?Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh good lord. Your violation was:, , , , and with even the most cursory of glances at the recent history it is obvious that you are the only editor who has recently been adding contentious material to the article. This really isn't complicated: discuss here. VQuakr (talk) 02:41, 6 December 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