Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 39

Possible abuse of AfC tools
Of course one generally has respect for the WP:NPP and WP:AFC people but of course one trick is scummer by using an WP:AFC reviewer tool to leave the derisory comment Nah; attributions are fairly commonplace and block editing for over 12 hours ... maybe the edits and dumping of sources by  are justified but per  at User talk:RHaworth/2019 Apr 27 there is history of the slashing. Now with the totality of our interaction history there there is perhaps rightful cause to be WP:UNCIVIL to me but to misuse the tools to do so is likely inappropriate. While the message at helpfully points to IRC help disclaimer apart mainly from the fact I had a pretty bad experience over a WP:BLP last time I was there and it also exposes IP address so I'm not using IRC. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I do plan to work on the draft and eventually accept it, having arrived over there from WT:INB. I have no idea on whatever the heck, the OP is claiming of me. &#x222F; WBG converse 10:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you do not have a negative COI to the subject and are planning to get it in over the line that's perfectly fine ... and we both know 95%++ of the time you'll write better prose on it than me. That is meant to be a 12hr limited banner so adding a note to the talk page and perhaps not using the reviewer tools might have been better.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @ hopefully you'll get a chance to look at this soon and hopefully well desalt it. .  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Contrary to my initial plans, I did not come across any proper source covering the subject, at all. Rejected. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Given our interaction history and there may be legitimate concerns about your independence to assess this article at WP:AFC and I would have expected this to be left to a more independent person to assess. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

AFC submit glitch
Posting this here to give notice to all folks, but also to ask about a bug - I recently fixed the submit dates for Draft:Gershon Hundert and Draft:Tel Hadid, which were submitted today with AFCH but for some reason grabbed the timestamp from the AFC submission/draft template (one of which was from 2018!). Is this the intended functionality or is it a bug?

For the other folks, just a note to check that all drafts you submit via AFCH show up in the "0 days" instead of something silly like "Very old". Primefac (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Rewarding AfC contributors
Hey all, I have $1000 I'd like to spend on Wikipedia, by giving to contributors rather than the WMF. I'm thinking of offering a monetary reward for people who review very old AfC submissions, $1 US per article, not much but it could help incentivize backlog reduction a bit. It would be structured along the lines of this previous project. What are your thoughts? Looking for community input on if it is a bad idea and what sort of quality control measures I need to implement. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to post a reward on that board, but please make sure the reviews are appropriate and not just done to earn money. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading this briefly this idea could likely create a host of problems for contributors and the community in general creating COI's that need to be declared and everything and overall would likely have a net negative effect in my opinion. I have nothing to do with AfC admin/reviewing that is simply my viewpoint. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that it may be a good way to reduce the backlog, so if you would like I think you can post a reword on WP:JOB (did not know it existed before this). That being said, with AfC reviews, I think it is hard to control for quality of the reviews, with some people possibly mass-reviewing drafts without giving them a through look just for the money. Perhaps it may work better with GA s as in that case you can have the reviews be of a certain quality (reviews must be longer than a certain length, etc.) Taewangkorea (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this can be made to work. The project you reference had a limit on how much a single participant could collect. That seems like a good backstop to prevent abuse. You might also offer a reward for reviewing reviews. This was an activity that was part of our backlog drives designed keep review quality from dipping. ~Kvng (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Kvng's idea also sounds good to me. Taewangkorea (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok thank you for the feedback, offer is posted. I'll vet the reviews by looking at the drafts and making sure the outcomes make sense, and also by looking at users' edit history. If I see that someone reviewed ten drafts in five minutes, probably something fishy going on. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool. I don't see a per-reviewer limit. Is that an oversight? ~Kvng (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no per-reviewer limit for now, if y'all think I should add one I can. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing accepted pages (NPP)
Hello, I am both an AfC and NPP reviewer (which I think many here are). Sometimes, when I accept a draft, I also mark the article as reviewed (based on the criteria), but I was wondering if this is allowed. I have been doing this several times and I am curious. Taewangkorea (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - hi there. You are allowed to do both. There's a bit of an ideological split on it amongst the reviewers as to whether to also patrol accepted drafts - some do, some don't. You can find a couple of prior discussions on it in the archives, but they basically came down to leaving it to reviewer/patroller discretion. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you for your advice. Taewangkorea (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Question

 * Moved from WT:AFCP Primefac (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I might be interested in participating, but I'm not sure how to prove my understanding of policy, as necessitated in the criteria. Can someone please tell me how I can give a demonstration of my policy understanding? I understand the policy, but I don't know how to demonstrate it. Thanks a lot, Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  22:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all you would need at least 500 mainspace edits; according to your edit count you have only 306. Your account is also relatively new – although I believe it may have sufficient longevity to pass the guidlines. If you were to apply at a future date, your post here (application) would create a series of links (see the threads above) and the evaluating editor(s) would look at your involvement in discussions involving policy (such as AfD etc.) and also how you interact with other editors in discussions about policy. Also taken into account would be things like article creation and good article development. Thanks for wanting to help out. Eagleash (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help! I appreciate it. Yours -  Puddleglum2.0   Have a talk?  00:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2018 3 mysteriously shows up as a "G13 eligible AfC submission"
The page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2018 3 mysteriously shows up in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions. If we make a dummy edit, then the page will temporarily disappear from the category, but will re-appear in May 2020. Can anyone find out why the page mysteriously appears in the category, and how to permanently get rid of the mysterious categorization? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Because there are rejection templates used on the page; I'll disable them. Primefac (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Help closing approximately 30 AFC/R threads
I was in the process of accepting and declining redirects, and I believe I processed roughly 30. So, after I accepted and declined, I hit "Done" (edit: using the AFC/R helper script). Then, the redirects began to be created, until 25. At that point, I hit the rate-limit, and nothing else processed. So, the redirects were created, but some were not, and the redirect requests were never marked as closed. Should I just go through and close everything manually, or is there an easier way to do it? Should I only review 25 at a time, or is there a way to disable the rate limit? In the meantime, I'm just going to manually accept everything I did on my last review, and hope that somebody notices this before I'm done. Cheers, Utopes (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Substantially the same as AfD version?
Hi, could an admin check if Draft:Hammad Safi is G4able? The deletion discussion is here. Thanks Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's my non-admin two cents. This DEFINITELY smacks of promotion, in fact you could just apply G11 and be done with it. As for G4, I couldn't say because I never saw the deleted version, but that's only if it's a near-copypaste recreation. But I agree it needs to be deleted. Best, PrussianOwl (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it has been deleted now as promo. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't see this earlier, but a Draft can't really be deleted under G4 because it's likely in the draft space to improve past the points where it was deleted as an article. That being said, if it was deleted following an MfD, then it could likely be G4'd. Spam deletions work fine too. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

December events with WIR
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Draft:Elwood Walter, No. 7 - Second Opinion Requested
I have come across Draft:Elwood Walter, No. 7 while reviewing, and after declining it, the creator posted a message on my userpage so I took another look again. Based on the references, I think that it MAY meet GNG (I will have to access the newspapers through my library) but I believe that this is just a run-of-the mill pilot boat. What do other people think? Taewangkorea (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest material be merged into Sandy Hook pilot. The majority of the material in the draft is contextual and not specifically about the specific boat. The only other similar boat with an independent article is USS G. W. Blunt (1861). This article was created in 2007 when inclusionists ruled the universe. ~Kvng (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * After I declined, the author did some additional work to focus the draft on the vessel. It is now no longer a good candidate to be merged into Sandy Hook pilot. I have advised that it be resubmitted. ~Kvng (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you. Taewangkorea (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old
Yesterday this category Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old was nearly 2,000 today it is empty...what happened? How did I miss this? I usually review/accept/decline around 20 articles a day and the grand total rarely seems to have dropped before. Theroadislong (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The "Very old" category was useful when we were barely ever in the category, but with recent discussions at CSD and AN asking "what if" with respect to drafts potentially reaching six months without actually being looked at (and if everyone was being an idiot, G13'd) I thought I would add categorization for 2-5 months as well as the Very Old category. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In other words, there are still ~3700 pages to review, but now we have a slightly better idea of how many fall into which categories. Primefac (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah yes I see, that is much better and looks less of a daunting task now. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, definitely feels better to say "up to five months" rather than "it will take more than two months, but up to... six?". Primefac (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Good day. I do some G13, however, I do look at the drafts prior G13 them, for draft passing the guidelines I will move to mainspace, for potential drat I postponing G13 either by making a dummy edit of using the script, for draft or I will leave the drafts alone if there are many sources and I dont have time to look at them. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Primefac (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey there . I wanted to let you know that the AfC helper script lets users who finish reviewing an article continue to the next random submission, one-day-old submission, or very old submission. While I do appreciate you separating the "Very Old" category into subcategories by month, this kind of defeats the purpose of having a "continue to the next very old submission", when this category should always be empty. Any thought on how to tackle this problem and give users a way to continue to an "older" submission? Thank you, Utopes (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be a question for (I did notice that myself though); I haven't had the time to look at the AFCH code for quite a while now, though I seem to recall it's always done that; prior to this split there was a time when "very old" was empty (I believe we were somewhere around 5+ weeks) and it did the same thing. Primefac (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Noting that HasteurBot is now procedurally executing on the G13 rule after if all the following are met: If all of these are true, then the bot does the procedural nomination of G13 and notifies the page creator that it's been G13ed. Hasteur (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The page is enrolled in the AfC review category (has a Category:AfC submissions by date subcategory)
 * 2) The page creator was notified on at no less than 5 months unedited on the page
 * 3) The page is at least 30 days from the notice to page creator
 * 4) The page is at least 6 months unedited

Gaming the System
A week ago, I said at the talk page of the rule against Gaming the System that I would like to add some examples of gaming the system. After getting no response, I have boldly added some examples of ways that the Articles for Creation process (and sometimes the Articles for Deletion process} is gamed, including stripping of AFC comments, and tweaking of titles. Please review, comment, and improve.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Those all seem good examples to give Nosebagbear (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Substantially the same as AfD version II?
Hi, could an admin check if Draft:ITWorx is G4able? The deletion discussion is here. ~Kvng (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In a word, no. Primefac (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:List of Ajinomoto brands
Please review Draft:List of Ajinomoto brands again.Jonathan7375 (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Academics in humanities
Please feel free to ping in re: drafts on academics in humanities. I would be happy to review these. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * If you're actively interested in such, here are a few from very old to new:


 * Draft:Schulte-Nölke
 * Draft:Professor Matthew Osunga Buyu
 * Draft:Douglas Frenkel
 * Draft:John Baugh
 * Draft:Charles W. Mooney Jr.
 * Draft:Adesoji Adesugba
 * Draft:Steven L. Tuck
 * Draft:Orsat Ligorio
 * Draft:Dave McGrane
 * Draft:Maurice Vile
 * Draft:Susumu Nishibe
 * Draft:Tove Pettersen
 * Draft:Mary Romero
 * Draft:Iymen Chehade
 * Draft:Amy Lyford
 * Draft:Klaus Mühlhahn
 * Draft:Jerrell Shofner
 * Draft:Charles Grogg
 * Draft:Celeste Watkins-Hayes
 * Draft:E.H.S. (Stuart) Simmonds
 * Draft:Iole Fargnoli
 * Draft:Juliane Rebentisch
 * Draft:Steven J.R. Ellis
 * Draft:Sadeq Kia
 * Draft:Angela Dalle Vacche
 * Draft:Niels Åge Nielsen
 * Draft:Thomas Chung (artist)

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldbruce (talk • contribs)
 * similarly, I will deal with scientists; but there's no need to refer them to me if it appears they have a named chair or an elected membership in a major national society, they'll meet WP:PROF as long as there is a source for that, and a source for the basic bio. With respect to the basic bio, it doesn't have to be a third party source. I could deal with a few this qwwk.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you; this is helpful. I've struck out the entries that I already reviewed, in case someone wants to join in. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Updated. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Junior ice hockey
Hi. Could someone else review Draft:Brookfield Elks Jr. B hockey team - the author has been busily improving the article since my decline but unfortunately not by addressing the notability issue. I went looking to see what other articles there are about junior ice hockey to point them to an example of a good one, but discovered that Nova Scotia Junior Hockey League and every one of its teams that it links to are unreferenced. Arguably, none may be notable? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt the individual teams are notable, because it's the B side of a kids' league. Primefac (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If I was to nominate them en-bloc at AfD which way do you think it would go? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As usual it kind of depends on who shows up, but we generally don't keep junior teams unless they're internationally recognized for being really good (or are fictional). Primefac (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a Level-B team, so think of it as minor-A pro-baseball (not AAA-minor league). [FWIW, Major-junior (paid players; better than NCAA division I), Junior-A (unpaid players; formerly called Junior-AAA; similar to NCAA division I / CIAU), then everything thing else is much lower quality (if you're not MJ or JA or CIAU or NCAA divI, you don't go pro)] -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, but as I'm British, comparing ice hockey to baseball hasn't helped much!! As a casual observer of these set of articles, finding them with zero sources and but in the same breath that WP:ORG isn't the applicable notabilty guideline makes me uncomfortable. But given my total lack of knowledge of the subject and a whole bunch of people (with sticks) to weigh in and remind me so, I think I'll leave these be. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Related RfC
Redirected here from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories.

Hi. For users that create a lot of redirects, I thought I should let you know that I've opened an RfC at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Redirect autopatrol. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Q-Gaussian (Second Opinion Needed)
Recently (some time ago) I denied Draft: Q-Gaussian due to an article on Q-Gaussian already existing. However, today, the editor who created the article posted on my talk page saying that the two deals with different subjects. So can someone who has familiarity with math take a look at this and see if they do talk about different things? Thanks, Taewangkorea (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If haven't done it already, I would also ask for help at WT:MATH and WT:WPSTATS. Primefac (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. I have done so and gotten helpful info regarding the distribution. Taewangkorea (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Missing Draft categories
If I come across a draft without the corresponding categories required to track the draft (e.g. Draft:Bendy and the Dark Revival), should I add the missing categories myself? Or will a bot eventually populate the cats?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which cats do you mean? KylieTastic (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The AfC categories that appear in the majority of drafts (e.g. Draft:The Ethan Hale Company).-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I don't believe any bot would put Draft:Bendy and the Dark Revival, as it stands, in a category. A draft is not required to be in any category. You are free to add Draft article, which can be used to sort drafts into various categories;   to put it in Category:Draft AfC submissions; or   to put it in Category:Pending AfC submissions. Whether or not any of those is helpful in this case is a matter of judgement. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I assumed the categories would be helpful for AfC reviewers and for general tracking (for G13 candidates for example). If the usefulness of categorizing the drafts is in doubt I won't bother adding any if I come across such pages in the future.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Couple points: 1. Drafts are not supposed to have mainspace categories on them.  Full stop. 2. The categories you're looking to get added (from the Ethan hale company) are populated fromt he AFC draft (and children) templates.  I did some work to re-wire the template so that it was backdated and "created" by the page creator.  Because we've made changes to it recently, it recieved a reprieve on the CSD:G13 rule under the patrolling my Bot (HasteurBot) does. Hasteur (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely aware of the prohibition on namespace categories in draft space and was specifically speaking to the AfC categories. Apologies if I wasn't clear. If I come across similar instances as Draft:Bendy and the Dark Revival in the future, should I: 1) add a backdated AfC template myself, 2) notify you or 3) let it be? -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If it looks like there's possibility, submit it for review. If not backdate it and put the creator in so that we can move these pages along. Hasteur (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Will do; thank you.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what mean by "backdating" a submission, but if you submit a draft please use the date it was submitted; it is nonsensical for a page submitted in December 2019 to have a submit date of July 2018 (and yes, that actually happened a couple weeks ago). Primefac (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If I'm only getting the AFC banner on for "draft" mode (i.e. => AFC submission/draft) I'll backdate it to when the page was last edited by the author. If it looks promising, I'll submit the page for review with today's date for submission. Hasteur (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not seeing the reason - if it was submitted in Dec 2019, the submit date should reflect that. Primefac (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

What to do...
... if I change an article to a redirect, and just see afterwards that it was mentioned here? Should I simply delete the template from the redirects talk page, should I move the talk page? It's about this two articles: Bory de Bori es Borföi family, mentioned here, now a redirect to Bory de Bori és Borfői. Both redundant articles were created by ASUNEmpire, who has a third version on his user page. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I think both articles are almost the same. One could be deleted in order to prevent confusion. ASUNEmpire (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Question
I am certainly new to this, so bear with me! Currently going through old/new unreviewed articles; can someone explain this to me? Article declined in October 2018. G13d months later, then undeleted weeks thereafter. Accepted without major changes today. I am learning about the deletion/review process and would love your feedback. Thank you in advance, PK650 (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * PK650 some articles are easy to decline or pass, but many come down to opinion, hence why in other areas consensus is required. This is just two reviewers having different opinions - Clarityfiend thought it failed "WP:BIO and WP:GNG" and Curb Safe Charmer thought it was notable. KylieTastic (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So in this sense declining requires an explicit rationale (via the red comment box), but accepting does not? Thanks, PK650 (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess in a way... a decline/reject does always give the reason the reviewer thinks it fails possible with deatils, but when accepting there is no place to say why. So yes it's unlike other consensus discussions (such as WP:AFD) where both sides will be more explicit. KylieTastic (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sometimes reviewers will leave a note on the article talk page explaining how they determined that the subject was notable: example 1, example 2. That can be useful for new page reviewers when they come to review the new article after the AfC process, or for anyone that might otherwise on face value think the article is a candidate for deletion. There's also a template sources exist which is used where the reviewer has established that the subject is notable even though it might not be obvious from the references provided. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you all! PK650 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested concerning a long translation draft
Hello. Your feedback is requested at this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Drafts concerning a long translation currently in Draft space. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Who is active?
I've updated your "most active reviewers" query here (which isn't bad for someone who hasn't written any SQL queries for 7+ years!) It is interesting to see that 17 of us are doing two-thirds of the reviewing. I'm not sure what your other stats show, but am I alone in thinking the project isn't in a very healthy state at the moment? Well done to for 444 reviews in 30 days, by the way! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha, thank you. I do my best. Try to help when I can. It's surely not in a good place. I can't handle reviewing every one - so many terrible submissions, I can only break so many hearts...! Missvain (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * you've only got publish and decline your missing 'Rejecting submission:%' (see my query) KylieTastic (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Although most active is not a good measure because it can take 10, 100, 1000 times longer to review some than others, and we have a lot of the non trivial ones to get through. KylieTastic (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Historically (based on these stats), the top ten have pretty much always done about 2/3 of the total workload; as stated by Kylie there are a lot of folks who do a relatively small but consistent amount of reviewing, generally from the back end of the queue. I guess I'm not surprised to see those numbers haven't changed much since I was last really tracking them. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

want to be a reviewer
Hello i want to be a active reviewer, i use Wikipedia daily and i will be available everytime.. ( Shubham Ghodke ) 18:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I suggest you read through WP:AFCP and the reviewing instructions before you apply. Primefac (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

How to submit a page to draft
Hi Folk does anybody know how to submit a page to draft. Thanks.  scope_creep Talk  13:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * is  (omit username if submitting on your own behalf) what you're looking for? See Template:AFC submission/doc for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I just realised I have script to do it, but never used it before to drafify a really decent article before. It's this article:Draft:Maria Canals (pianist). Thanks.  scope_creep Talk 
 * You can also use AFCH as well. KylieTastic (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Gustave Eiffel University
Hi, I just got a message from a frustrated user not quite sure of the best action. They created Draft:Gustave Eiffel University and have been working on it and much improved it since my initial decline. However before they got to resubmit Gustave Eiffel University has been created with no sources at all, so much worse than there own first declined attempt. I thought about a speedy delete and possible accept, but thought it could well not be deleted as sources clearly exist now. Are there any policies for such a thing to give credit to those like MyPOV who have tried to do things the correct way, only to be slapped in the face like this by such a poor article start? Regards KylieTastic (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've history merged the two pages and restored MyPOV's version. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey JJMC89, many thanks, hopefully they appreciate it. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Stolen AfC acceptance credits
A recent undisclosed paid sockpuppet ring (detailed in the Juanafavour SPI) included a user that stole AfC acceptance credits from other editors. The user did this twice:


 * 1) In Draft:Christian-Democratic Rebirth Party, Palomieunlv changed the parameters of the draft template to replace the real author  with Palomieunlv's own username.
 * 2) In Draft:Kay O'Halloran, Palomieunlv added 2 citations before changing the parameters of the draft template to replace the real author  with Palomieunlv's own username.

This was clearly done manually, since the Palomieunlv username is spelled in lowercase in Special:Diff/930998808.

Both times, when the eventual reviewer accepted the draft, the "Your submission at [...] has been accepted" notice went to Palomieunlv's talk page and not the original author's talk page. This is a problem because the editor who did most or all of the writing didn't get the positive feedback that would have encouraged them to continue working on the article, or contribute other articles to Wikipedia. By stealing the credits, the sockpuppet gained the appearance of credibility at the expense of everyone else.

I've returned the notices to the original submitters' talk pages. If you ever see this kind of behavior again, please examine the editor's contribution history and consider whether the editor could be related to Juanafavour or another paid editing ring. —  Newslinger  talk   12:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Help new user
14:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)