User talk:Alsee/Archive 12

Latest comment: 4 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic Tech News: 2020-03
Archive 5Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Please comment on Talk:Electric smoking system

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion section was not closed. When a RfC is closed the discussion section is usually closed along with the RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru the discussion section is usually boxed because a closure is typically intended to resolve an issue and end the discussion. Nothing was really being resolved, other than that the RFC-statement was ineffective for new arrivals and that it should no longer be treated as live !voting area actively summoning uninvolved editors. My intent was not to interfere more than necessary. I figured I'd leave you and the others maximum freedom on how to proceed. You could continue discussion towards a resolution, discuss drafting a new proposal, abandon the topic, or anything else.
If you feel the closure-box needs to be expanded then I'm certainly willing to consider an explanation why that would be beneficial. I'm not hostile to the idea, although I do wonder what the purpose would be. Alsee (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I think The closure box should close the entire discussion. This did not seem like a split discussion. I asked repeatedly what content they want split. I never got a clear answer. That is grounds for a topic ban. There is content in the e-cig article and the article Vaporizer (inhalation device) is not about heat-not-burn-products. If a new RfC is started an editor should make it clear such as they do not want to split the content. They want to delete it. QuackGuru (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru - "That is grounds for a topic ban." Might I suggest that opening a poorly-drafted RFC and complaining to the closer is not an effective approach to that. I only have a superficial knowledge of the situation and you may well have good reason to be frustrated, but it's not something I can solve as closer of this RFC. At this time the best I can do is close this RFC as unsuccessful-at-anything, clearing the table for anyone to take a next step. If someone warrants a topic ban then perhaps you should present the case at ANI. If you want to proceed with an RFC as a solution you'll need to lay out a more clear RFC-statement. Alsee (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Can you close the entire discussion? If a new RfC opens again about this I will request a close if it is unclear. QuackGuru (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru my goal is to be accepting of reasonable-criticism or productive-improvements to my closes, the problem here is that I don't understand the purpose or benefit of the change that you are requesting. Either you didn't provide a reason, or I'm having trouble catching that reason from your comments.
Regarding a followup RFC, anyone may open one. And of course any RFC may get closed early if there are sufficiently severe problems with it. Although I see no reason to raise concerns about a potential followup RFC in advance of seeing it. Alsee (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
When a RfC is closed the discussion is usually not left open. Either it should be fully closed or fully reopened. I don't see a benefit to half-closing it. There won't be more discussion towards a resolution on the article talk page after over a year. There is a history of problems with RfCs in this topic area. See Talk:Electric_smoking_system/Archive_7. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, I agree that discussions are usually not left open. However I recall a significant number of RFCs where a closer deliberately left one or more sections open, although I don't have any links handy. It feels like you're hoping that I can somehow solve issues that I can't address. If there's a conduct problem then you need an Admin/ANI. If you want a consensus then you need to draft a more productive RFC. All I can do here is take down an unproductive RFC-tag and box it so no one thinks they should add a !vote. Basically all I did was convert a tagged-voting-RFC into an untagged-nonvoting-ordinary-talk-thread. For practical purposes the RFC never happened, and you're still exactly where you were when it started.
I can't topic-ban anyone, and regardless of whether I box the discussion section I can't prevent further discussion of the subject. Given that all I did was euthanize an unproductive RFC-tag, I feel it mandatory that the close explicitly invite further discussion or a new RFC. I can't give the impression that my close resolved or prohibits anything. Alsee (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
A new RfC is underway. QuackGuru (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru I'm not sure whether you're annoyed at me, but for what it's worth I want to try to be helpful. Your goal here is (or should be) to get a solid and enforceable consensus. The better the RFC and the stronger the result, the easier it is to shut down anyone who violates that result.

The new RFC is somewhat better than the last one, and it might be successful at what you're trying to do. However it's still a very poor quality RFC and it still may fail. Imagine someone gets BOT-invited to your new RFC. They arrive knowing exactly zero about the situation. They see the RFC question Should we delete any of the brands such as Electric smoking system#glo products from the Electric smoking system#Products section? They have no idea what brands are on the page, they have no idea what the dispute is, they have no idea whether any of them do need to be removed for some reason. And they are not going to spend an hour digging through the talk page trying to figure out what's going on and form a well-informed opinion. They are unlikely to respond to the RFC with the answer you want, which is "no". They will probably either leave without responding (which will leave you with little-or-no mandate for consensus at the end of the month), or they may leave a comment complaining that they can't effectively respond to the RFC. That does not help you.

Here is how I would suggest handling this. Temporarily take down the RFC. Instead use this:

<nowiki>{{RFC}}</nowiki>
This Draft RFC will go live in 7 days: (Insert current month and day +7 here.)
Should we remove any of the brands or products from the Electric smoking system#Products section?
Pinging discussion participants to nominate products for removal. (Insert user pings here.) Any rationale or discussion for removal should given in the RFC response area. ~~~~
* ''insert products for removal here''
 
===Responses===

On the start date you remove the nowikis, and for proper RFC-bot behavior you should also replace the signature&timestamp with a new signature&timestamp.

At this point there are two options. If the pinged-editor(s) list what products they want to remove, then people arriving at the RFC will happily pass judgement and respond to the RFC. If the pinged-editors don't list products to remove and/or don't provide any rationale for removal, then it is clear to the people arriving at the RFC what is happening here. It is clear that you are the reasonable collaborative editor. It is clear that you have given the pinged-editors every reasonable opportunity to present a case, and they failed to do so. People arriving at the RFC will happily pass judgement on the pinged-editor's failure to present a case. They will probably respond to the RFC with a flat "No", or some form of "No, not unless a reason is given". Either way you will get a solid and easily enforceable result. Alsee (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I added a list of the brands to the discussion section. It is up to others to present their case rather than make vague arguments about splitting or deleting content. How many years do you think things like this has been happening? Just on this article for well over a year. The key RfC was getting my draft to replace the article. That was successful. Only one editor opposed the draft. That same editor is not happy with the article and now wants to delete some of the brands. QuackGuru (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru - I agree it is up to others to present their case. I'm trying to help you work through the social-system and RFC-system more effectively. I'm trying to help you present a more solid RFC and reach a more solid result.
How many years do you think things like this has been happening? - Here is the important point, people showing up at the RFC don't know that. They don't want to know. They don't want years of history. They want a nicely packaged RFC that gives them just enough information to confidently pass judgement on something. You need their support, and the current RFC probably won't do a very good job of convincing them to give you their support. You have to assume they are competent, but ignorant and impatient. Right now, someone showing up at the RFC is likely to think "I don't know enough to respond". There is a strong chance that they will either leave without responding, or complain that they can't easily respond. Neither of those options helps you.
If you take my advice above then you will almost certainly get solid RFC-result. Either the pinged-editors present their case and people showing up at the RFC will happily pass judgement on the presented-case, or they will fail to present a case and people showing up at the RFC will see that you gave them a week to present a case for the RFC, and that they failed to do so. RFC-respondents will then pass judgement on the clear failure to present a case.
Right now you're hoping that RFC-respondents will vote for you based on all the stuff that happened before the RFC. That's not going to happen. People aren't going to spend hours reading and evaluating everything that happened in the past. They want spend just a few minutes reading and passing judgement on a nice small RFC-package. You either need an RFC-package that presents their case, or an RFC-package that shows a failure to present a case. You need that evidence inside the RFC, not evidence scattered across long rambling talk page arguments. Alsee (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't have to have an opposing argument. It is possible there will be an opposing argument made within a few days. I presented a strong case for keeping the brands. I don't think anyone after over a month will come up with any new reason for deleting them. QuackGuru (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

18:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

15:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Satoshi Nakamoto

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Satoshi Nakamoto. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abortion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abortion. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

09:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

 

Hello Alsee,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 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.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • 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, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata. Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Veridia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Veridia. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

16:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #10

18:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia as a press source

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia as a press source. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

15:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

23:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Page mover

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Page mover. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages – October 2019

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Inside this newsletter, the Editing team talks about their work on the mobile visual editor, on the new talk pages project, and at Wikimania 2019.

Help

What talk page interactions do you remember? Is it a story about how someone helped you to learn something new? Is it a story about how someone helped you get involved in a group? Something else? Whatever your story is, we want to hear it!

Please tell us a story about how you used a talk page. Please share a link to a memorable discussion, or describe it on the talk page for this project. The team would value your examples. These examples will help everyone develop a shared understanding of what this project should support and encourage.

Talk Pages

The Talk Pages Consultation was a global consultation to define better tools for wiki communication. From February through June 2019, more than 500 volunteers on 20 wikis, across 15 languages and multiple projects, came together with members of the Foundation to create a product direction for a set of discussion tools. The Phase 2 Report of the Talk Page Consultation was published in August. It summarizes the product direction the team has started to work on, which you can read more about here: Talk Page Project project page.

The team needs and wants your help at this early stage. They are starting to develop the first idea. Please add your name to the "Getting involved" section of the project page, if you would like to hear about opportunities to participate.

Mobile visual editor

The Editing team is trying to make it simpler to edit on mobile devices. The team is changing the visual editor on mobile. If you have something to say about editing on a mobile device, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

 
What happens when you click on a link. The new Edit Card is bigger and has more options for editing links.
 
The editing toolbar is changing in the mobile visual editor. The old system had two different toolbars. Now, all the buttons are together. Tell the team what you think about the new toolbar.
  • In September, the Editing team updated the mobile visual editor's editing toolbar. Anyone could see these changes in the mobile visual editor.
    • One toolbar: All of the editing tools are located in one toolbar. Previously, the toolbar changed when you clicked on different things.
    • New navigation: The buttons for moving forward and backward in the edit flow have changed.
    • Seamless switching: an improved workflow for switching between the visual and wikitext modes.
  • Feedback: You can try the refreshed toolbar by opening the mobile VisualEditor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Toolbar feedback talk page.

Wikimania

The Editing Team attended Wikimania 2019 in Sweden. They led a session on the mobile visual editor and a session on the new talk pages project. They tested two new features in the mobile visual editor with contributors. You can read more about what the team did and learned in the team's report on Wikimania 2019.

Looking ahead

  • Talk Pages Project: The team is thinking about the first set of proposed changes. The team will be working with a few communities to pilot those changes. The best way to stay informed is by adding your username to the list on the project page: Getting involved.
  • Testing the mobile visual editor as the default: The Editing team plans to post results before the end of the calendar year. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: VisualEditor as mobile default project page.
  • Measuring the impact of Edit Cards: The Editing team hopes to share results in November. This study asks whether the project helped editors add links and citations. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: Edit Cards project page.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

14:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

16:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Party of Canada

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Party of Canada. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

 

Hello Alsee,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 805 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • 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, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.


To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

16:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

22:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Growth team updates #11

15:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

20:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

16:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British TV series)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British TV series). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

16:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Redirect autopatrol

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Redirect autopatrol. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

16:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice comment

Very nicely put. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Partial blocks

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Partial blocks. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

00:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

 

Reviewer of the Year
 

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

20:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

21:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-03

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

19:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

18:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

20:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)