User talk:Wgolf/Archive 6

Fundo Mamacona Article,
Dear Wgolf,

I just recieved your message: "It's still a copyright violation. You can't copy stuff and paste it in here. I removed it again; next time I will have no choice but to block you. "

It says ive copied from http://www.mincetur.gob.pe/TURISMO/OTROS/inventario%20turistico/Ficha.asp?cod_Ficha=2794. , which is not true. That other article was done by Luciano Silva, as cited on the references. Who is the owner of fundo mamacona, complejo turístico mamacona and MAMACONA, and hence owner of this user too. I whould like to know what to do to publish my article.

Also, the cited article is just some uncited information on the web. Information by the way which was done by this used, delivered to MINCETUR, a peruvian national agency. Also, MAMACONA in the cited article refers to FUNDO MAMACONA, Comprejo turístico mamacona or MAMACONA, all which are the same. Every information of MAMACONA on the web comes from us, and is copyrighted by us as we are the owners of mamacona since 1903, as cited on the Uhle, M., Grosse, C., & University of Pennsylvania. (1903). Pachacamac: Report of the William Pepper, M.D., LL. D., Peruvian expedition of 1896. Philadelphia: Dept. of Archæology of the University of Pennsylvania, by that time.

I THINK I KNOW HOW NOW: THE " http://www.mincetur.gob.pe/TURISMO/OTROS/inventario%20turistico/Ficha.asp?cod_Ficha=2794 " ARTICLE IS REFERING TO "SUBTIPO [SUB-TYPE) casa-hacienda" as it states in the upper right side of the pdf, WHICH IS IN THIS CASE THE CASA [HOUSE] HACIENDA IM WRIGHTING ABOUT: NOW COMMERCIALLY CALLED: FUNDO MAMACONA. Casa-Hacienda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardosilvabeck (talk • contribs) 01:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

you can verify this as that information is exacly the same as the one presented in www.mamacona.com fundo mamacona´s web page. where it talks about the weddigs and other events we realize. Please help me with this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardosilvabeck (talk • contribs) 01:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The Link: http://www.mincetur.gob.pe/TURISMO/OTROS/inventario%20turistico/Ficha.asp?cod_Ficha=2794, cannot be copyrighted as its a government pdf factsheet about us: Fundo Mamacona as it clearly states within its paragraphs. Its a factsheet talking about Fundo Mamacona (my article) with information provided by us. This is not copyright infringement, but a simple confusion, probably by the language as the cited information is in spanish. Please check it out and you will clearly realize what im trying to explain. MINCETUR is a government agency which has no right or authority to copyright but to present and distribute information given to them.

Thanks for your help, BernardoSilva. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardosilvabeck (talk • contribs) 01:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Please let me know how to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardosilvabeck (talk • contribs) 01:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
Thank you for helping me, sorry for my errors, I am a new user. Thanks to you I have just been able to fix my errors :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JAPPERPO (talk • contribs) 21:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Pabitra Kar
Hallo, your edit did 5 things:
 * 1) corrected my typo - good
 * 2) removed my duplicate birth category - good
 * 3) removed my defaultsort - ???
 * 4) removed the living people cat - ????
 * 5) put brackets round an external link to hide it - ????

I reverted you and re-did the first two! I think we were both having a bad day. It happens. Pam D  06:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Betaal Pachisi
Sir you moved my page Betaal Pachisi (1997 TV series) to Betaal Pachisi. But there is already a page with same name Baital Pachisi so that was why I'm added date. Plz reply - Dedha9 (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

-That is because that is a different spelling-you have it listed as Betaal Pachisi not Baital Pachisi. Wgolf (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Plus there was no article listed as Betaal Pachisi, which there are actors who do link to that. Wgolf (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Sir But both has same meaning. If someone try to find 1997 Tv series how can he find that. - Dedha9 (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Simply put a redirect tag on the other page then-there was simply no page called Baital Pachisi, sorry I'm not a expert in Indian words so you will need to ask someone else. Wgolf (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I have now redirected Betaal Pachisi to Baital Pachisi as you say it is the same name, and added a hatnote there to point to the tv series. I think this sorts it all out as simply as possible. Pam D  06:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And I fixed links from 3 actors. Pam  D  07:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Redirects to Rugby union articles.
Hey, you are a common reviewer of the articles I create. I was wondering if you could add the word "union" after rugby, on the redirects you add. For example, the page: Hugh Brooks Mills has a "for the..." pointing to Hugh Mills (rugby union). Allthough the term rugby is referred to generally as union, there are two codes of rugby. In this case the article name has rugby union in brackets but I suggest adding: "for the Rugby union player see.."

Cheers for your article partol work. Sirpottingmix (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd disagree: there's no ambiguity, and until there is a rugby league player of the same name the hatnote "for the rugby player" is fine; hatnotes should be concise. There should probably be an article on BAFTA-nominated Hugh Mills (screenwriter) (4 incoming links) but there's nowhere obvious to point a link to him for now. Pam  D  08:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it might be best either to move the US politician/businessman back to the base name, or to create a dab page there - he was originally created at "Hugh Mills" but moved in 2014 after muddled editing about rugby player. No indication which is the primary topic. ... Oh, go for it: have moved the American back to the basename. Simpler. Pam  D  08:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

NPP / AfC
Hi. Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lynn Barber (disambiguation)


The article Lynn Barber (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Per WP:2DABS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Jeff Gulka
Deletion is fine Wgolf of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gulka. Not a hill I'm prepared to die on, I don't really have a dog in this race, and I don't have time to write a whole thing on it, delete away with my blessings! Cheers!

Randal Oulton (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: New Page Reviewer user right
HI. A discussion is taking place to request that New Page Patrollers be suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. Your comments at New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Whisperback
23:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, you can review this article. Thank you: List of animals and plants symbols of the Canary Islands.--81.36.15.195 (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Wasim Aftab
For what it's worth, the original page was actually first created at Wasim Aftab director, because the user incorrectly thought that the wiki namespace was for articles. The same user also tried replacing the entirety of Help:Special page with the same article, and before any of this happened their original edit was to add the whole thing to WikiProject Stub sorting as a subsection — so needless to say this is crossing the line. I've bumped up to final warning that he'll be editblocked if this happens again — I see you're not an admin, so if you happen to see the page get recreated again (the sandbox page in his own userspace doesn't count), then please let me know. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

"Page has been reviewed"
I keep getting notifications that the pages I maintain have been reviewed by you (2016–17 NHL transactions, ‪E.J. McGuire Award of Excellence, 2016–17 NHL suspensions and fines). What does that mean? Clicking the notification does not take me to any review or news about the page. Just curious. -Uncleben85 (talk) 05:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for reviewing my new-page-edits. Regards--Buchbibliothek (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for John Haydon article ... Risk Engineer (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding McJuggernuggets
Hey Mcjuggernuggets is a very popular YouTuber with over 3 million subscribers, the article on him should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.148.251 (talk) 06:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:UAA and COI accounts
Hey Wgolf. I saw that you reported Euclidmarketing at WP:UAA. Thanks for doing that. I just want to give you a heads up that there frequently are well meaning UAA patrollers who will deny requests if the account in question has not been warned about the username conflict. The rationale is that they aren't given an opportunity to create a compliant username. So, if they are warned, and make a subsequent edit anyway, we then have ample reason to block. Giving the warning also makes it more likely an administrator will block the account if the account makes further promotional edits even without a posting to UAA. The appropriate template to warn such accounts with is uw-coi-username. I've warned Euclidmarketing at their talk page in this case. In the future, could you use this warning before reporting to UAA? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

User:SG290

 * I understand that this user is identical to a banned user. But even so I'm not sure that the situation is being handled adequately.
 * First, what was the original account banned for? I found no notice about it on his page. There were some notices that pages created by him were proposed for deletion because of lack of evidence of notability but by now their notability has been established. I am under an impression that he was an unexperienced but bona fide user who just didn't realize how to show the notability of his subjects. So I suspect that he was banned without any adequate reason.
 * If he was banned and then created new accounts then it is not clear that he realized that he was not allowed to do that. Is there any evidence of his disruptive behaviour?
 * Even if it is right to delete pages created by sockpuppets, does it serve Wikipedia's interests when the articles are reasonable contributions?
 * Speedy deletion is eligible only if other users have not done substantial revisions, am I not right? So deletion of Getter Saar wasn't right. This is why I undid the deletion. I removed no tags. Andres (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it's User:SG290. Andres (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You can restart the articles they did, the reason why they were banned was sockpuppets which is against the rules, and sockpuppets of blocked accounts get the pages removed, but instead of editing pages by them, just recreate the page, hopefully that wont be a issue. Wgolf (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Michael Findlay (veterinarian)
Could you please review this article for me when you have time. Thanks.Gomach (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing spree? LOL
I had created 80+ articles and I have gotten at least 10 "reviews" from you. just fyi. hahah. Pyrusca (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Michael Rowe page
Hey Wgolf. I created Michael Rowe wiki page because he had a relevant role in Arrow tv series throughout its 5 seasons, and i thought that give him some relevancy to have a wikipedia page. Slade97 (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * }

New Page Reviewer granted
Hello Wgolf. 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.
 * 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.

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.

You have been grandfathered to this group based on prior patrolling activity - the technical flag for the group will be added to your account after the next software update. You do not need to apply at WP:PERM. 20:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Mohsen Khansari
No, not notable. GiantSnowman 10:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Mohsen Khansari. GiantSnowman 18:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Frida Sanggaard Nielsen
Hi, the sentance about Josh Norton was added after I reviewed it do you think it should be removed, I think it should if it was written by Josh Norton, thanks for clearing up the talk page it did not say it was a redirect. Atlantic306 (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Aleix Manzano
Indeed it should have an AfD, non-notable player. I've already warned this user about the guidelines (WP:FPL, WP:NFOOTY and so on) but he/she doesn't seem to care at all. Thanks for pointing it out though, seems like I've missed out on this one. :) MYS  77  ✉ 16:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Please Stop
Please stop with the reviewing of the page curation, it's starting to clog my notices box, and it's starting to get annoying.&mdash; JJBers (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to why it's a problem for Wgolf to use page curation but not for you? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, here's the option for turning off page review notifications: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing pages I've created
Hi. How are you finding pages I've created and reviewing them? You've done this about 10 times in the past few days and I'm confused as to how. Do you do this for a lot of new pages or have you been specifically doing this for pages I've created? In most circumstances I only created the redirects, not the content.  Ss 112  20:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * -I am finding tons of new pages on the new page feed-not doing redirects though. Wgolf (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was just confused because some of them are several months old.  Ss 112  20:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but is this pressing review on whatever Wikipedia tool you use actually helping? You don't need to "review" pages I've created; I do it myself when I find content has been created on them. If they're not notable, I turn them into redirects again. If they have issues, I tag them. I'm sorry to seem rude, but I don't need somebody to send me notifications saying they've done it for me. Maybe other users do, but not me. I'm just sick of seeing all my pages, all of which I already knew existed, "ha[ve] been reviewed". Pages I already know exist and have looked at don't need oversighting because I've already done it myself.  Ss 112  04:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure if there is a way to turn that off or not for notifications. There are tons of unreviewed pages still from July/August, hence why so many of those are showing up. I can see why it be a hassle. Wgolf (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, you can turn off those review notifications under Preferences / Notifications : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo Just out of curiosity tho: did you get autopatrol recently? AFAICT, it doesn't apply retroactively--so after I was autopatroled, I still had about 20 entries that were in the backlogged feed of new pages to be checked. But if you've had autopatrol a while, it's odd you'd still be in the feed requiring review from another editor. Maybe it has to do with redirects being expanded into entry? I feel like maybe I've seen that bounce them back to the new pages feed? Anyway hopefully turning off the notification solves the issue. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Tony Cox (Nov 2nd)
(Now let's see if I've put this in the right place this time!) hello, Please, if possible can you reinstate the #REDIRECT Anthony Cox that I deleted, (not knowing it wasn't permitted) and reactivate the article. If it's not possible, do I need to rewrite everything from scratch? (I don't have a copy! and can't now access it in 'my contributions') Thanks, Luciferfan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciferfan (talk • contribs) 10:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciferfan (talk • contribs)

Tony Cox (Nov 3rd)
Hello, I'm still waiting to hear from you regarding my Tony Cox article. I've just read again what you left on my talk page; "Please if you want to create a page create it instead of editing a disambiguation/redirect page!" That's what I did, I created a new article. So possibly my only mistake was in deleting the #REDIRECT Anthony Cox. Hope to hear from you soon, Luciferfan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciferfan (talk • contribs) 20:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Tony Cox (Nov 4th)
Hello, I managed to find the Tony Cox article in my contributions history and have improved it with better links and also included it into the redirect Anthony Cox. Hopefully everything is OK now, but please let me know if there's some other problem. Thanks, Luciferfan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciferfan (talk • contribs) 15:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The article is now Tony Cox (record producer) Luciferfan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciferfan (talk • contribs) 19:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

User group: New Page Reviewr
Hello.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.

A kitten for you!
Thank you very much for your review

Malivone (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC) 

New Page Review - newsletter
Hello ,


 * Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action. If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

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. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
 * Second set of eyes

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation. Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .
 * Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

New Page Review - newsletter #2
Hello ,


 * Please help reduce the New Page backlog 

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.


 * Getting the tools we need

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
 * Improve the tools: Vote here.
 * Reduce your review load: Vote here

Kantar Health
Thanks for reviewing the Kantar Health page. Cheers, gmseow
 * --Gmseow (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Wgolf: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU  ( ✉ ) 21:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

89th Academy Awards
There are lots of new facts related to this ceremony, and editors are continuously adding such facts, where there are no questions about their authenticity at the same time we cannot state every fact into it. Either we have to create a separate section for them or have to reach a mutual consensus to remove it or at least trim to it the most important ones. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 11:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

-be sure to link each page to there nominated category also-like the visual effects page they all need to be linked to! Wgolf (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2
Hello , We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October. The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to. Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten. This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody,  and
 * A HUGE backlog
 * Second set of eyes
 * Abuse
 * 1) this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting  in  a community ban.
 * 2) this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in  a community ban.
 * 3) This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3
Hello , Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed. We now have New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced. If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Still a MASSIVE backlog

HELP!! Edit-a-thon happening on 3/11
I think you are the person who helped me back in 2015, when I held an Art+Feminism edit-a-thon at the UofR. Well, I'm back and haven't done any editing since then and am holding another event this Sat. I thought I'd locate an experienced wikipedian to assist, but that hasn't happened. Are you still in Rochester??? Sfrontz (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)StephanieSfrontz (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hi Wgolf

I know that you are one of the few moderators that follows my actions and that you almost certainly approve my new pages. However, in the past month, I created a page about "Haysha Deitsch". It seems that nobody seems to want to approve it. And that is what bothers me... is it something that I may have done wrong? Or is the page not good enough?

Anyway please let me know in the talk section below or on my personal talk page so that I can lift this burden of my chest

Regards, Moviemanmk

Greetings! (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC) 

Interlanguage links
Hello, I made an article in a different language and I want to link that to its equivalent English wikipedia article, but I don't know how to do it. Can you help me and teach me how to do it please? I really don't know how to make interlanguage linking. GeekMoody19 (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
Hello ,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just reviews, the  backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Haitian Standard French listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Haitian Standard French. Since you had some involvement with the Haitian Standard French redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 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.
 * has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
 * Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Stub sorting
Please don't use the Stub tag if you can find a more specific stub tag; stub sort whenever you are able. To do otherwise will backlog Category:Stubs. Thank you. (I have the incredibly vague memory of already telling you this, but wasn't certain. You'll have to excuse me if I've forgotten a previous conversation.. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @  05:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

-wow just looked at the backlog, thanks, I was just clicking on the stub for the patrolling thing without changing the tags on some of them. Wgolf (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there has been at least a slight increase in the backlog since the page curation bar has come out. A lot of people do that. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  21:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey there
Thanks for Added Joe Moore Link and other page! Ryan Pikachu (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Brooks-British Range tundra
Hi, I saw that you marked Brooks-British Range tundra as reviewed. What does it mean if it's reviewed, and how is that different from assessments by wikiprojects? -Furicorn (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

-really it just means that your page is okay and that it is now reviewed-can't really explain it. Wgolf (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing Remi Barry, Wgolf.

Unfortunately Domdeparis has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

"seems not to meet WP:NHOOPS and the sources are not enough to pass WP:GNG I believe"

To reply, leave a comment on Domdeparis's talk page.

Domdeparis (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing Staphon Blair, Wgolf.

Unfortunately Domdeparis has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

"Hi seems to fail WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG"

To reply, leave a comment on Domdeparis's talk page.

Domdeparis (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Gary Dunn (American football coach)
Thank you for redirecting Gary Dunn (American football coach to Gary Dunn (American football coach). Very much appreciated! DeAllenWeten (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing Andre Borell, Wgolf.

Unfortunately TonyBallioni has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

"Borderline G11 piece, need assessment for notability as well."

To reply, leave a comment on TonyBallioni's talk page.

TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I went ahead and tagged it as G11 because it was an autobiography that only served to promote the author. The image in the infobox was also a copyright violation (thought that is more of a Commons issue than here). I noticed you've reviewed more than 1,300 pages over the last week. I very much appreciate the dent that you've made in the backlog, but I see you've had a few other unreviewed pages above. It might be a good idea to slow down a bit. Even some of our best reviewers such as  can't do much more than an hour straight, especially if working from some of the newer parts of the feed. Thanks again for all the hard work you have been putting in. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. You are making too many errors. If you do not slow down, I will need to consider removing the user right.  DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

article you reviewed
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buhle Samuels  DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC) -okay sorry about that, well I have seen worse (There have been times wehre nearly every article was reviewed where some never have checked), I usually don't do it that bad though, as for the article that was CSD-I actually don't remember reviewing that-I might of had another window opened and meant to review that one instead of the other. (There was a time about a year or 2 ago where apparently someone reviewed over 3K articles in one day, don't remember who though) Wgolf (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Done properly, it is not possible to review more than an average of about 30 new pages per hour. This is the conclusion of several highly  experienced patrollers who  have been patrolling  over a number of years. Admittedly  some pages that  are blatant  spam, total  junk, or attack  pages are generally  easy  for  most  people  to  recognise (but  they  still  get  it wrong). Even harmless looking  pages need a well  developed instinct  for anything  unusual  such  as hoaxes, paid editing, or artspam, and therefore the entire page has to  be read thouroughly  and the sources checked for  fakes. We're not  talking  here about  correcting  anything  either -  NPP  is a triage, it's not  a field hospital. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually have put more tags on the articles then review them-though some of them are questionable that do come out. Sorry if I got some of them off though. I do my best though-the older ones are sometimes the trickiest though, which I tend to look over more. Wgolf (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Oops, meant to say I look at more older articles as of late. Wgolf (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Zawl. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Hassa Beek, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

— Za  wl  07:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * -? The page doesn't even show up as being reviewed by anyone-and you didn't even put why, did you even have the right page? Wgolf (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Even stranger-it says it is from March 31st, and while I have reviewed older pages as of late, I didn't review any of those ones for a couple of nights when the counter would of been reseted. -I know you did bring this up on my profile lately, but do you know anything about this? Cause I have no clue why this was sent to me. Wgolf (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * it does not show in the article history--it sows only on the page log: 23:46, September 6, 2017 Wgolf (talk | contribs | block) marked Hassa Beek as reviewed.
 * but the page history shows that Zawl apparently by mistake nominated it for deletion as a duplicate of its own draft.  DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Please check for copyvio
Hi Wgolf and thanks for your work reviewing new articles. Please remember to check for copyright violations. The particular one I saw was Eddie Cole (musician), which had extensive copying from http://www.allmusic.com/artist/eddie-cole-mn0001463448/biography. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Welcome-well I just put 2 tags on it-didn't review it, but thanks and everything. Wgolf (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 14304 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 day.
 * Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
 * The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: 
 * On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
 * Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.