User talk:Alexandermcnabb/Archive 2

Discussion/Marshall Inu

Hi, I saw you weighing in on Pawthereum, you seem to be interested in cryptocurrencies. We are having a discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshall Inu and we would love your input on the article, we recently did a big clean up, hopefully you will be more impressed with the sourcing. Thank you! Best Lethweimaster (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About Article deletion discussion regarding Deepak Rawat.

Don't do that. I was searching for that article. It is very notable person here. I see there are lot of sources about it. Thanks.

Discussion/Marshall Inu

Hi, I saw you weighing in on Pawthereum, you seem to be interested in cryptocurrencies. We are having a discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshall Inu and we would love your input on the article, we recently did a big clean up, hopefully you will be more impressed with the sourcing. Thank you! Best Lethweimaster (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About Article deletion discussion regarding Deepak Rawat.

Don't do that. I was searching for that article. It is very notable person here. I see there are lot of sources about it. Thanks.

Barnstar

I have noticed your good intentions and quality edits on topics regarding United Arab Emirates on Wikipedia, I believe you deserve this barn-star.

		The United Arab Emirates Barnstar of National Merit
		Your work on expanding the scope and coverage of UAE-related articles is valued and acknowledged. I know how hard it is to challenge biased and misinterpreted information originating from outside the region regarding the United Arab Emirates on Wikipedia . Please continue your superb work. Best regards, Wikiemirati (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you! Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for you

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Hi A. You deserve this for all the time you've spent cleaning up the UAE articles. Your efforts are much appreciated. MarnetteD\|Talk 15:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*blushing furiously*

I was here for the same. Also, if you havent done so already: kindly stop going through the articles/creations of John Carter for a while. You deserve a good break (brake?) from that mess. Lets see how that discussion pans out at ANI. See you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 01:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi usernamekiran I'm done, as I noted at ANI. As far as I know, they're all cleaned up now. Whatever other mess is still there, IDK. But the UAE stuff is done and dusted now. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Alexandermcnabb,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Creately

Hello. In case you missed it, a fairly obvious IP sock of User:Hareshamjadu has been removing the speedy tag you added to Creately (along with a valid orphan template). Thanks, 82.132.213.200 (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did miss it - but there's more than one set of eyes on that article! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--103.152.151.20 (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Gordon

Hi there, please check my comments regarding this page deletion here. Martinvince (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bilmuri

"Why was the page listed for deletion over "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries" There is no coverage of this standard referenced here." but the article has 7 cited articles and reviews from 4 different independent press outlets? How does this not cover the standards referenced above? Do you not accept them in online versions or do you not accept independent press at all? Im confused. Thank you for your time!" - DBScott1995 (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gläser

What makes you think Michael Gläser is not notable? Look at 50th Annual Grammy Awards, and don't waste our time, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know ... ... that the choral conductor Michael Gläser was called in to lead the Thomanerchor in Leipzig when its musical director Georg Christoph Biller fell ill? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do I care? Seriously? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al Moghameron

I had to change the spelling of the title but it wouldn't allow me so I had to move it to a new page

Can you verify the page again? Sorry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Moghameron_Al_Khamsa Godaiger (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

File:Christmas tree in field.jpg	Merry Christmas Alexandermcnabb
	Hi Alexandermcnabb, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this past year, like this tree, you are a light shining in the darkness. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somali Message

Remove completely irrelevant section. The Al Qasimi were not involved in any military action against Berbera, the source does not uphold the assertion that Sultan was incapable of action due to 1819 and Al Qasimi activity in this area bears no relationship to any 'Battle of Berbera' - in itself one of the more dubious articles to be found on Wikipedia. The only relevant fact here is the existence of this letter.

I believe in consensus lets discuss Alexandermcnabb

1. The Al Qasimi were not involved in any military action against Berbera My edits never stated they were

2. The source does not uphold the assertion that Sultan was incapable of action due to 1819 and Al Qasimi activity in this area bears no relationship to any 'Battle of Berbera' Reading this article that you created yourself Persian Gulf campaign of 1819, there is widescale devastation and destruction of Qasimi territory and other ports of the Gulf, and a loss of significant sovereignty. Interestingly the only place you do not use sources is where you say this Campaign brought prosperity and put them on the path to becoming global cities. Yet you protest to my statement, despite Ras Al Khaimah being destroyed and his fleet ruined. Also, Sheikh Zayed revolutionized what is now the UAE not this gunpowder diplomacy.

3. 'Battle of Berbera' - in itself one of the more dubious articles to be found on Wikipedia This is unfounded dismissiveness, prove that it's dubious

4. The only relevant fact here is the existence of this letter Which naturally has contents and an entire book was dedicated by the direct descendant of Sultan Saqr - Sultan bin Muhammad Al-Qasimi. I would please like you to read it before you do anything further it is the main source on this topic. Here it is https://sheikhdrsultan.ae/Portal/Publication/2020/Letters-of-Somali-Leaders/index.html

I removed the statement that you took issue with until we come to an understanding, regards WanderingGeeljire (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of an article's content should take place on the article talk page. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry, accidental rollback. WWGB (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NP WWGB - did think it was a bit abrupt! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zrarieh massacre

After seeing your comment about the arabic sources in this proposal, there is a related discussion here you might be interested in. -- Maudslay II (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maudslay II. You were right. :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Arab Nations Cup Final

Hi, I surprisely saw that the result of the consensus of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002 Arab Nations Cup Final was to merge to 2002 Arab Cup, however There's more keep votes than merge votes. Do you know how we can contest this decision ? Regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, Fayçal.09. The close wouldn't purely be on numerical grounds, but an assessment of the arguments put forward as well as consensus. There is always the option to add more to the merged content and spin it out to be a separate article in future. Adding Arabic language sources, especially discussion of the match, would help. You could ask for a deletion review, here, but I'd spare yourself the effort, to be honest. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take note of your message, thank you for the info and advice. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Your recent editing history at Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural and historical contributions.

While the implications of having to squeeze out a living in the exact same location (liable to emirati security laws and need to self censorship), in which the vast amount of your editing are concerning. I for one have to admire your in depth knowledge of the Emirati society. When you lend credibility to your contributions by association of name and credentials, a COI becomes somewhat obvious, that being said the amount of encyclopedic potential in your unique position is admirable. If possible do continue in adding non-puffery, cultural, historical and current content. Best regards Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Alan Fraser Davies

Dear Alexandermcnabb, I hope all is well, I have added a couple of reviews of his noted book (with Encel) that has gone to 11 editions I think and another Obit. He seems clearly WP notable to me. I might be missing something but thought you might like to have another look and perhaps withdraw the nomination. No worries if not. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Nomination of Sharjah Wanderers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sharjah Wanderers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharjah Wanderers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

nirmal (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Are you saying that you are going to talk about my behaviour (see here [1]), or Possibly's. I don't understand how you find my mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisparitoshmandal (talk • contribs) 09:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About Article deletion discussion regarding Jagan Timilsina.

With due respect, some strong evidences that justify the article have been added so I don't think the article falls under Wikipedia deletion policy as of now. Thank you.

Speedy deletion declined: East German language

Hello Alexandermcnabb. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of East German language, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: In my opinion, this doesn't meet the outright WP:G3 or WP:G1 speedy deletion criteria. It would appear to me it should be re-named as something more appropriate. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shirt58 Thanks for the heads-up, as you see I took it to AfD. I'd have draftified but I don't think the creator would have accepted that now. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crumbs. What a mess of all kinds of problems happening there...--Shirt58 (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI NOTICE

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Abdulrahman Al Shamsi Death.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Abdulrahman Al Shamsi Death.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 14:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Alexandermcnabb:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.[reply]

WP:BURDEN

Please do not restore challenged material without providing a reliable source; please see WP:BURDEN. This is in re: International Humanitarian City. WP:PROMO also applies. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, K.e.coffman, the most cursory attempt at WP:BEFORE would establish for you that International Humanitarian City is the largest humanitarian aid hub in the world, and home to logistical operations by the World Health Organization, the United Nations Refugee Agency, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Food Program and UNICEF among others. For instance, it is home to UNHCR's global stockpile. Blanking it and turning it into a redirect is really not terribly sensible. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The content is preserved in the diff at this talk page section: Talk:International_Humanitarian_City#Redirect, and can be retrieved from there, once proper sourcing has been located and the article sufficiently improved to comply with WP:V and NPOV. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Your recent editing history at International Humanitarian City shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
See WP:BURDEN -- "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3]" K.e.coffman (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman You reverted me within four minutes and then templated ME for edit warring? Take a look at my sandbox here, where you'll see the edit that conflicted with your reversion. You'll perhaps see that the content is actually related to a very real and valid thing - the world's largest humanitarian aid hub. That is, literally, what it is. All it would have taken was a degree of WP:BEFORE to see that. If you'll self-revert, I'll add the content and then we'll have an article in place of what was a mess but should never have been blanked as a redirect. I'm not sure why a page watcher would want to delete this from your talk, so here's a ping on mine. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated the article - I take no response to my message on your talk and the above ping as tacit consent to the change. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now you're doing it at Dubai Cares? and you continue this at International Humanitarian City? Drmies (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

Hello Alexandermcnabb,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

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

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD which may be relevant to you.

Hello. This is to inform you that there is an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brake check which you may be interested in, as you !voted in an AfD on the same article back in May. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 18:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RAK Ceramics

Hello!

Stumbled upon your user page almost immediately after I was done checking out RAK Ceramics. I was going to take it to AfD, but a relatively superficial search yielded quite a bit of coverage, so the company is definitely quite notable. Article is largely unsourced and needs quite a bit of copyediting. I noticed you mostly work on UAE-related articles, so this might be something you can help clean up. I'm not that interested in articles on corporations. Thanks! -- Mooonswimmer 16:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mooonswimmer: I'll take a look tomorrow - it is, as far as I recall, the world's largest producer of ceramics, so it might indeed need some WP help!!! Thanks! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Nordensvan

You recently tagged Carl Nordensvan with multiple notability tags. Given that there is a non-trivial amount of citations, could you expand a bit on your notability concern and why you view the present references as being insufficient? -Ljleppan (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ljleppan: There are certainly foreign language sources presented, including what appear to be obituaries, but do they demonstrate notability? WP:GNG gives us, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." and then a number of additional filters are applied to determine notability. As a soldier (attaining the final rank of major) and car company employee, Nordensvan is arguably not a notable figure (not notable enough to attract independent coverage in his lifetime). Additionally, the language in the article is problematic - "pioneering efforts" and lines like "He was intimately involved with the running of the company until the start of the Winter War in late 1939." and "Nordensvan was highly involved in the Finnish motoring and motor sports..." all speak to efforts to confer notability on a subject who would perhaps not normally be notable. Hence the tags. Any editor can remove those tags, but they are essentially a request for a third pair of eyes to ensure that the issue has been addressed or, indeed, is not an issue. In Nordensvan's case, I believe it to be an issue but not so strongly as to nominate the article for deletion. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I'm relatively well versed with the relevant guidelines, which is why I asked for additional details on your concern. Simply WP:DRIVEBYTAGing without any explanation in the summary or on any of the talk pages made it very difficult to tell what your objection was especially in the light of the multiple independent reliable sources used as references. While I disagree with the tagging (esp. as you appear to not have assessed the existing non-English sourcing; e.g. none of the sources are obituaries and multiple of them indeed published during his lifetime), I'll leave the tags for now for a third pair of eyes. As for concerns regarding WP:NPOV / MOS:PEACOCK language issues, it would be easier for involved editors if you tagged those issues inline. Ljleppan (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you'll glean from the above, my concern is less the quality of the sources and more his inherent notability. This is enwiki, I'd not realistically expect people to be able to read scans of Finnish or Swedish print sources, would you? The tags were left as I reviewed the page for New Page Patrol, the NPOV language issue I presented as contributing to my notability concern, not something I'd normally tag inline or edit as part of NPP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is enwiki, I'd not realistically expect people to be able to read scans of Finnish or Swedish print sources, would you? I would not, but that is why we have talk pages etc. where questions can be asked from those who can. Alternatively, if I was unable to assess some sources myself, I would note so either in a comment next to the maintenance tag or in the edit summary. I'm sure you are well aware of WP:NONENG: Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed even if English language sources are preferred when high quality ones are available. In any case, have a nice day and good patrolling :) Ljleppan (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoplastogen

Hi Alexandermcnabb,

Thank you for letting me know that I need to add categories to the article. To confirm, should I select main categories from the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Main_topic_articles, then drill down to select sub-classifications across the drop-downs at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Main_topic_classifications? Then, add the categories and sub-categories within the source code at the bottom of the article?

Thanks, --HHA LTP (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HHA LTP: They're not my strong suit to be honest, but that seems like a good approach! There's also a pretty nifty tool called HotCat, which you'll find in your user preferences under the Gadgets tab in the Editing section. That automates adding categories and suggests categories. Nicely put together article, by the way - although a little (a mile) over my head!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion @Alexandermcnabb. I will definitely check out HotCat. Thank you for the comment on the article as well. It's much appreciated. Best HHA LTP (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Saigrace Pokharel

Hi , hope you are doing well . This is regarding the tags of multiple issue you placed on Saigrace Pokharel , the tag shows notablility issue whereas the subject has coverage on the Kathmandu post , the himalayan times , my republica , the annapurna express , ekantipur , nagarik news , Setopati, online khabar,Nepali times and many more other secondary reliable sources , you can also check https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Usedtobecool/PSN for the reliability and notibility of a news website prepared by some experienced editor , also the article was created through article for creation and i got the message on my talk page saying my article was approved , please have a look at the link i have provided that shows the reliability of the news website aswell and i have used the references that counts for notibility amd reliability . Khagendrawiki (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Khagendrawiki: - the first source presented in the article is an interview, the second is also an interview, the third is actually a feature about a rapper called Sudeep Bhandari in which Saigrace's video is mentioned - a passing mention, in other words - and so on. There are those who would argue notability is established by the multiple sources, there is also an argument that they are not sufficient for WP:GNG to be passed, hence the tags which are really just a way of asking people to take a look and see if the article can be improved ('May not meet...') - rather than sending the article to Articles for Deletion, which you'd do if there was a high chance the article would not pass the minimum standards for inclusion. Acceptance at AfC, articles for creation, by the way, doesn't necessarily mean an article won't be deleted later on at some point. You can remove the tags yourself, especially if you can improve Saigrace' notability with more sources. The article was tagged as part of new page patrol, which means it has now been reviewed - a process that any new page goes through to be accepted into Wikipedia. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi , thankyou so much for you reply. Now i understood the tags , i will be collecting more references and improving the article . Thankyou so much Khagendrawiki (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Corvides

Hello. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Corvides, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: "Corvides" appears to be the application of Cladistics to Corvidae - please see the references, such as they are. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Forbes (Cricketer) AfD

I noticed you withdrew Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Forbes (cricketer) based on an assertion that it meets WP:NCRIC. Please be aware that although many editors insist otherwise, NCRIC simply tells us that coverage is likely to exist, and the article must still meet the SIGCOV requirement of WP:SPORTBASIC. I went ahead and opened a new AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Forbes (cricketer) (2nd nomination). –dlthewave ☎ 18:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

Hello Alexandermcnabb,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000^[a] at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.^[b]

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 12238 articles, as of 00:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conica AG

Hi , regarding your tags at Conica AG: Please take a look at User_talk:Onel5969#Conica_AG. Not all sources are independent secondary sources, but some significant publications are still included (e.g. SRF). I also recently added another source on a cooperation (high importance for athletics) and the current sales figures. Actually, shouldn't that be enough? Best Respicefinem (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed this. I responded at the AfD... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol \| July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Tags

Hi, when adding a notability tag, please only use one. If you use the FILM notability tag, there is no reason for the general notability tag as that one is reserved for articles that don't fall into one of the notability categories. See this edit [2]. I removed the general notability tag with this edit [3]. Thanks DonaldD23 talk to me 19:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Yusuf bin Ahmed Kanoo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yusuf bin Ahmed Kanoo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yusuf bin Ahmed Kanoo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Oliver Virk (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have stopped editing Juhi Rustagi

I have Stopped editing from Juhi Rustagi who is editing with my account I don't no don't send simply message ok bye 94.128.80.69 (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Osarhieme Osadolor

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Osarhieme Osadolor, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Kaizenify (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Sajad Hussain Malik is notable and offical, please help to save from deletion.

The article about Sajad Hussain Malik is notable and offical because it denotes a person biography which is considered in many official Indian news agency. 2405:205:105:A329:B46B:C1CA:A0AA:5932 (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Close About Article deletion discussion regarding Sajad Hussain Malik. Don't do that. I was searching for that article. It is very notable person here. I see there are lot of sources about it.

Close About Article deletion discussion regarding Sajad Hussain Malik. Don't do that. I was searching for that article. It is very notable person here. I see there are lot of sources about it. The article about Sajad Hussain Malik is notable and offical because it denotes a person biography which is considered in many official Indian news agency Thanks. 2405:205:105:A329:B46B:C1CA:A0AA:5932 (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Kudpung. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, McPherson Seaplane Base, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Tender Claws

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tender Claws. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lijil (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Server.com

Hello. Will you withdraw your nomination? I presented 3 adequate sources. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Mohammed bin Rashid Space Center Logo.jpg

The file File:Mohammed bin Rashid Space Center Logo.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused. Superseded by File:Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Centre logo.svg.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, Minorax - it did its job for 5 years! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

Hello Alexandermcnabb,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination: MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF: The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers: The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP message

Hi Alexandermcnabb,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stub sorting

Hello,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is easy to do via the StubSorter tool, and is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! MadameOctavian (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Beyrouti

I've written over 90 of these pages for new bishops/eparchs. They all follow the same template I've created. This is a first, explain why you made this a draft when the other 90 didn't have to go thru this process... Roberto221 (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this page, Historical list of the Catholic bishops of the United States, then start from the bottom, #1497 Francois Beyrouti to #1411 Jorge Rodríguez-Novelo for proof..

Roberto221 (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess because I came across him on New Page Patrol and thought he doesn't meet WP:GNG, but accept the error. Give me a while and I'll review him back into mainspace. I'd revert, but fear the amount of crashing and banging that'd cause. Sorry for inconvenience! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Anamur

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Anamur. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, AirshipJungleman29 - I agree! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Alexandermcnabb,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

AFD World

Hello,

As an admin, I review the daily AFD logs for closing deletion discussions and I see you everywhere! I appreciate your participation and enthusiasm but I'm concerned that between nominating dozens of articles for deletion review and participating in dozens of other deletion discussions, you might be spreading yourself a little thin.

In general, I have no complaints about the quality of your work but I don't see how this level of activity allows you enough time to do a proper WP:BEFORE with articles you are examining. I mean, I spend a lot of time on the project but I don't see how you can keep this level of activity up. I guess I just wanted to offer you a note of concern and say that there is no need to participate in every AFD discussion. What I've see from working with AFDs since January is your fellow editors judge each other on the quality of their contributions to the discussion. We saw this year how some editors who leave repetitive, brief opinions on a lof of similar AFDs not only got banned from AFD discussions but some got a block from the project! You don't have to worry about this, you don't do mass replies, but it's just a sign that fewer contributions of high quality is preferred over a larger quantity of lower quality responses.

I hope you'll take this note in the spirit it was intended and not as a criticism. Like I said, I greatly appreciate all of the work you do here, I just don't want you to burn out. We need you! Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Liz. Thanks for your consideration! I've been working on the NPP backlog, which as it has reduced has been a bit like the Dead Sea - getting saltier as the water levels drop. This has necessarily meant more difficult/borderline decisions and a lot more articles going to redirect/draft/AfD. As you'll know, the backlog is history, so I wouldn't anticipate sending quite as much to AfD moving forwards. Generally, I try and participate at AfD out of guilt at sending stuff there from NPP - and do give articles individual and careful consideration (but where they appear to be complete 'no brainers', I'll confess to tending to brevity in responses). I think my AfD log is still reasonably healthy, despite the odd spectacular flub! However, I'll take a bit more care and try not to treat you to the joy of watching another pile-on at ANI. Thanks! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I appreciate the explanation, to be honest, I didn't make a connection between doing NPP work and tagging articles for AFD discussions. I am glad that you maintain an AFD log and, hopefully, you review it once in a while. My own record with PRODs and AFDs is slightly above average so I'm not bragging here. I've said it before but frequently AFDs come down to who decides to show up and weigh in on the discussion. I've closed AFDs that had been relisted several times and at the last minute, a couple of editor join in the discussion and their participation changes my mind about how the AFD should be closed. I've tagged articles that were definitely sub-par but if there is an editor at the AFD who is adament that they can find sources, somewhere, then the article is often kept. Unfortunately, words of promise at an AFD aren't always followed through with actions but that's Wikipedia!

But I encourage editors just getting into heavy duty editing or patrolling to use Twinkle to create and maintain deletion logs, it can be useful in assessing ones judgement, I think, especially with speedy deletion tagging. Any way, it sounds like you not only have a healthy attitude towards this all and you still find working on the project compelling after all of the years you've been here which is encouraging to see! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! You must have been seeing The Random Deletionist From Hell on the AfD log!!! TBH, I find following AfDs helps a lot with NPP decisions and even vice versa... And yes, Twinkle is very much my friend! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why cannot am article about Born Demon?

Born Demon by Sahg was relesded on October 21, 2022. The album is a recording from a very kown band, with good references and AlL previous album are here. The question is, why not this album? Chavitico (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So Chavitico - it was released three days ago - has it gained chart positions? Awards? Coverage from reliable sources? It may do all that, but as of now it hasn't, so it's not notable as per WP:NALBUM. When and if it DOES become notable, the information and references can be put together to form an article and the redirect can be removed, simple as that! However, if its just restored in its current state, someone's going to change in back to a redirect. Give it a little time and you'll likely have what you need to produce the article you clearly wish to see! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bag0hchipz/Ancient Egyptian religion/Bibliography

Hello,

Sorry to come to your talk page so much but I had to correct you about this deletion tagging. You tagged it as "Nonsense" when cearly it was a bibliography, it even identifies itself in the page title as a bibiolography. Nonsense is gibberish like "dskljwei(#0kidn" or "Fly pigs aqua horse tomorrow fireworks!". This was clearly a list of references. And if you looked at the page history, which you should always do before tagging a page for deletion, you can easily see that an editor mistakenly moved it from User space to main space. The correct action for a page reviewer to take was not to tag it for deletion but to move it back to User space as it was an accident. Deletion should be a last resort.

For example, always check pages for that are tagged for Nonexistent Users because they are almost always just drafts that were mistakenly moved to User space instead of Draft space and they shouldn't be deleted. And most pages that are tagged A7 for lack of notability should be moved to be drafts if they are recently created. Please check, and double-check before tagging a page for deletion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Liz, to be honest this was something I'd never seen before and assumed was cruft but you're right and I'll look out for this in future. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About Demetrio Paparoni article

Hello,

I noticed that you edited the article and report that the secondary sources are not enough. In the Reference you will find, among the other:

Treccani, the most important Italian eccyclopedia
Art Press, a French magazine specializing in contemporary art
The American magazine Hyperallergic

All these sources talk about the subject as an important art critic and making an overview of him. Moreover these sources and are not directly related to him. Could you please let me better understand why I can't consider them secondary sources? I can easily find other sources, but I wanted to avoid creating an article where the sources are longer than the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankStardust89 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, FrankStardust89, (and this should really be a conversation on the article talk page) he's listed as an author on the Giovanni Treccani Institute website not as a subject of the encyclopedia; the Art Press reference is unverifiable; we do have a single book review in the website Hyperallergenic - but the article is sourced mainly to primary sources - Paparoni's own website, his page on Domani Magazine, booksales website Abrams Books; the Columbia University Press Website, a biography of members on the Dante Society website, a piece promoting an event on the Segno website. It's really just not good enough and I'd argue that Paparoni does not pass WP:GNG and the article would be - with the current sourcing - potentially a target for deletion. I'd recommend a close reading of WP:GNG and perhaps also WP:AUTHOR - for notability, more secondary sources ARE required and more indication that, for instance as an author, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors or for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique or has created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Noah Zuhdi

Thank you for taking time to review the Noah Zuhdi draft page. I am hoping you may take additional time in clarifying feedback for me. The article focuses on his boxing accomplishments for the vast majority of the time, which has me questioning the comment being flagged for the following: "As a businessperson, the subject would not normally be notable." His work in businesses is a sidenote on his current whereabouts, and not the focus of the article at all. Would taking the business part out make this article worth approving? If not, then I also have questions about the feedback reliable sources. Even according to Wikipedia, The Oklahoman or The Daily Oklahoman (as it was once known as) is the largest newspaper in Oklahoma and is essentially the state's paper of record. There are several articles from there cited in this draft. Credentials and info from both BoxRec.com (which nearly every boxer in Wikipedia has citations to) and ESPN.com are also there in the draft, establishing he is a real, legitimate athlete. The Norman Transcript was also cited as a reliable source, and the publication has its own Wikipedia entry. The Oklahoma Gazette was cited as a reliable source, and it, too, has its own Wikipedia entry. The reliable sources are there by Wikipedia's own standards and entries. In addition, almost every article has Zuhdi in its title and as its main focus. These are not passing mentions. I've seen multiple boxers with less citations, less credible citations, and less accomplishments make it onto the Wikipedia website. I'm wondering how/where to edit this. Thank you, again. Przybylop (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more sources to various fights and the brief business portion of the page. Przybylop (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, perhaps best discussed on the article talk page, but the ESPN biography reads, in toto, "Biography POSITION Guard BIRTHPLACE Oklahoma City, OK" and that's it. Other sources are non-RS (issuu, yumpu, noahzuhdi.com), local news, passing mentions, database entries. The standards for sportspeople articles have recently changed and they are now expected to meet the general notability guideline (I linked that guideline and also the reputable sources, RS, guideline for your reference in my review, BTW) - "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I'd suggest a read of both of those guidelines for some guidance on notability and referencing. I'd also refer to WP:WHATABOUTX - if other boxers have slipped in under the net in the past, it doesn't mean more need to in the future. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I will tinker with the sources and eliminate questionable aspects, but I believed the point of having an ESPN or BoxRec database up there, like many other athletes, is to show he was a collegiate and professional athlete and had statistics. The reason for mentioning he's a collegiate athlete via ESPN because it's a biography page, and I thought going through part of his early life was necessary in a biography, even if only for a sentence or two. That early life, the law background, and the business background are essentially sidenotes/figurative footnotes, though. I feel like each review of this article focuses on those things but not why he entered the public consciousness--his boxing. I almost get the sense that I should just delete everything else but the boxing, which would make the biography incomplete but would at least be more straightforward with the sources. The vast majority of the draft/article centers around his boxing career, which does feature reliable sources--independent sources with individual Wikipedia entries--that have him as the primary focus of their articles. I'll keep chipping away at this. Thank you for the reply. It means a lot to me--you afforded me more of your time and effort, and it is appreciated. Take care. Przybylop (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello Alexandermcnabb,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

New Page Patrol \| May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Alexandermcnabb,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New pages patrol needs your help!

Hello Alexandermcnabb,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Alexandermcnabb,

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Alexandermcnabb:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] t including another ~6,000 redirects

[2] The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

[a]

[b]