This is an archive of past discussions with User:Animalparty. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I am working on an article on Maude Drein Bryant. It looks like her work is in public domain according to this web site. Do you agree? And if so should I upload them to the Commons with the tag {{PD-Art|PD-1946}}?
@WomenArtistUpdates: To be honest, paintings are a bit tricky, since US copyright (under which jurisdiction Commons and Wikipedia fall under) is based heavily on date of publication, less so on the death of the artist or date of creation (see Commons:Publication) A painting in a museum may not constitute publication. Browsing some discussion on Commons leads me to believe it's complex and unresolved: see Paintings and publication and Paintings and publication date. It seems that there's an implicit assumption that paintings created before 1923 would have been published (e.g. in catalogs, magazines postcards or other reproductions), even if no evidence is available on hand. There are some legal loopholes for works that went unpublished until recently (e.g. {{PD-US-unpublished}}), but it's often difficult to prove a work was unpublished before 2003. With regards to works on the-athenaeum.org, the claim an image is in the Public Domain solely because "This person died over 70 years ago" does not seem sufficient rationale to claim copyright expiration to me (but I am not an expert). With regards to File:Calendulas and Asters.jpg specifically, the more info you can include about the source of the image the better. e.g. a url rather than "Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts", and/or links to catalog records or data that can help better evaluate the origin, provenance, of an image. What I usually do is look for explicit evidence of publication by searching Google Books, Internet Archive ("Search text contents") or Library of Congress Newspapers. If a painting is reproduced in a pre-1923 source (even if it's a black and white, scaled down photocopy), I think it can be assumed that the full color originals are similarly in the public domain. There are others ways art can be in PD, mainly due to technicalities: if you can find a painting first published in a US source after 1923, situations including {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}}, {{PD-US-1989}} or {{PD-URAA}}may apply (in my experience, of those four, PD-US-no-notice is the easiest to prove: if an art exhibit catalog does not say "Copyright [name], 19xx", somewhere on it, it's not legitimately copyrighted. The other ones require searching copyright renewals to prove a negative more or less).
Well I've written a lot, but I think that if you make a good faith effort to show an image is PD, it should be OK, and the worst that would happen is someone with better evidence of it being in copyright tags it for deletion. But since art copyright is a bit out of my area of knowledge, I'd recommend posing the same questions you asked me to Commons:Village pump/Copyright, with concrete examples. Hopefully you'll get some better clarity than I can offer! --Animalparty! (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
There was no reason to move this book article to a unnecessary disambiguation when the book already has a perfectly good title which it is way better known by which distincts it from any other artilce by the name. Please be so nice move it back.★Trekker (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, if you move an article make sure to fix the links in any navboxes. Which you did not do when you moved this article.★Trekker (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@*Treker: I was following established naming conventions at WP:SUBTITLES, WP:CONCISE, and WP:PRECISION. Long subtitles are generally omitted, regardless of their utility in explaining the topic. The "correct" or "complete" name of a subject need not always be the article title, nor is it required that the infobox name and article title always be exact matches (from MOS:INFOBOX: "It should be named the common name of the article's subject but may contain the full (official) name; this does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title"; and see e.g. Fire and Fury, or Pixar). I admittedly overlooked any navbox inclusions. If you still feel the long title is preferred, Requested moves might be the best route to proceed. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
How about the fact that the whole title seems to be the common name used by almost all sources? Why prioritize having a short title when having articles at their common name is also a guideline? That doesn't seem right to me, Wikipedia seem to have contradictory guidelines sometimes, or at least how people interpret them. I might do a requested move if I have time to learn how to do that right soon.★Trekker (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@*Treker: Titles are often a compromise between commonality, precision, conciseness, and disambiguation. However, I've taken you at you word that the full title is the more commonly used name, was able to move the article back to the long title, since the redirect had no subsequent edits. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for creating the article on Georgia Hopley. I was wondering if there's a reference that could be added for her date of birth? It's been raised at WP:ERRORS and I haven't yet found it in the linked sources. Apologies if I've simply overlooked it - am no expert in this topic area. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I have just moved the article in accordance with your suggestion on my talk page. Ugh, there's so many guidelines here even after over 5 years I still often catch myself not knowing about things like WP:CONCISE and WP:SUBTITLES that you pointed out to me. Ah well, I'll just have to keep learning and being careful. Every morning(there's a halo...)03:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Chilembwe's motivation
I have already had good cause to post about you spending only five minutes looking at the article I wrote on Leroy Vail on 2 April and adding the misleading tag that it relied too much on primary sources, which I demonstrated on 3 April was simply incorrect, as you apparently misunderstood the differences between primary, secondary and tertiary sources. You did not chose to respond to this or my follow up of 4 April.
You did however start looking at another article I wrote on Chilembwe's motivation at 19.06 on 15 May and started making comments at 19.11, five minutes later. The article is about 8,000 words long which at normal reading speed would take some 30 minutes to read, so it is patently obvious you couldn't have read it in any detail. Whether you could have read it with any understanding is a different question, but as it appears from you comments that you think the article relates to Christianity and Biography rather than Historiography, there must be doubt,
I am struggling to assume good faith on your part, but the almost unbelievable brevity of your review process before the comments started and the earlier issue relating to the Leroy Vail article make me wonder if this is your attempt at payback. So far, I have taken the following action:
1. I have reverted your deletion of seven categories as this is not a biography.
2. I have deleted the message "A Belated Welcome" you posted on my Talk Page, as I don't accept the need for it.
Going forward, I would like you to accept, on the basis of what I have said above, that your neutrality is fatally compromised. I would therefore like you delete all the comments you made inrelartion to the article, to leave it for someone about whom there can be no suggestion of bias. Sscoulsdon (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Sscoulsdon: Greetings, fellow editor. It's very late where I am so I will apologize for any insult I may have caused you, and point you to the well-established policies and guidelines that informed my actions, even if they were too hasty. In addition to the core content policies of Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability:
Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.
Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
The article Leroy Vail has large sections sourced to works by Vail himself.
Regarding categorization: Wikipedia:Categorization (especially Wikipedia:Defining) and Wikipedia:Overcategorization. We generally categorize articles in the narrowest and most appropriate of multiple category trees. Categories shouldn't be used as keywords or to lump broad, tangentially related articles. For example all of the categories of James Cameron are "people categories", and none of the "people categories" are at James Cameron filmography. Similarly, Inspiration of Ellen G. White is an article about historical events and, aside from the eponymous category, has no overlapping categories with Ellen G. White. John Chilembwe was a Malawian Baptist. His historical motivation was not a Malawian Baptist, but it is a subject pertinent to History of Malawi.
Thank you for your response. However (to be as neutral as possible) we are still not on the same page, as it is not the existence of Wikipedia policies that is in point, but your interpretation of them. You quote "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them" which is fair enough, and also say "The article Leroy Vail has large sections sourced to works by Vail himself", which is also true: the missing link, as I inferred in my e-mail of 3 April is that you think that, simply because Vail wrote something (other than his autobiography), that makes it a primary source. It does not and Wikipedia does not say otherwise.
While I'm sure that you are well meaning and acting in good faith you are simply wrong. No ifs, no buts, no twisting words to make them fit: wrong. I even troubled to quote for your benefit the relevant Wikipedia comments that primary sources offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history or are historical documents such as diaries, whereas secondary sources are an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. I added that this would make the bulk of the quoted articles secondary sources, or books that are general summaries, which are tertiary sources.
The definitions of primary, secondary and tertiary sources comes, as Wikipedia acknowledges from Historiography. Without wishing to be impolite, this seems well away from your probable area of experience or expertise, although it is one I have long been involved in. I am (or was before retirement), as you infer, an academic and my first university post was in 1973. I don't think it's arrogant to say that, after 45 years I have a good grounding in this issue.
I could similarly comment on what what you say on the other policies and guidelines you mention. I am aware of their existence and believe I'm compliant with them. However, as to whether you are in that position, I was certainly taken aback by the comment you left that "...the policy of No original research means that we cannot selectively use or synthesize multiple sources to infer statements or conclusions not present in the original sources" as though this might applied to something I had written. In the few minutes that you saw fit to spend on reading the article, you would not possibly have had time to read the sources, even if you could access them, never mind deciding if they were accurately reflected in the piece. To make such a comment intentionally without any supporting evidence is gratuitously insulting, and if unintentional and you didn't have the evidence you shouldn't have made it.
You say no-one owns Wikipedia articles, which I don't disagree with, but it is surely in line with the principles of Wikipedia to respect the effort that a fellow Wikipedian may have put into drafting an article by taking the time and using the necessary skill in undertaking a review.
Finally, two parting messages. Firstly, if you do continue to review articles, could I suggest that you actually read them through before adding comments (your first comment on Chilembwe's motivation was made within three minutes of starting to read it). Doing it in what appears to be your way of commenting as you go can lead to forming false impressions early on that it's difficult to shift later. Secondly, I note you have no further desire to edit any of your articles, which is fair enough, but would you kindly put it back in the position it was before your intervention?
Sscoulsdon (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
Hello Animalparty, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.
Backlog drive:
A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
Editathons
There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
Paid editing - new policy
Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
Not English
A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
News
Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Hello Animalparty, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.
Thanks for the Amendment of the Xericeps Page I Created
Thanks, for sorting the links out. I've not done much editing on Wikipedia over the last few years, so I'm a little rusty, hahah. Aquakeeper14 (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)
Hello Animalparty, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
June backlog drive
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers. Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
New technology, new rules
New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
Editathons
Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
The Signpost
The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.
Through some work on Afc, I came across your comment "Lastly, you should ask yourself if creating articles about dead children does more harm than good in the world". I absolutely agree. Why on earth, unless there is some wider legislative, or other significance, does Wikipedia carry these articles? The discussions I've seen, at AfD and elsewhere, with comments such as "Keep - the sources check out" just beggar belief. KJP1 (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to this dab page. While two your changes are in line with a literal interpretation of the guidelines (since they don't link to subsections), the third isn't necessary since WP:DABREDIR states "A redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article if the title of that section is more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic."
Thanks! Seems like there's a hundred or so pages suddenly linking to my disambiguation page - is there any way to edit these links other than manually for each page? Kittens n thugs (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Animalparty, you left a message on my talk page and invited me to reply on your talk page. I replied at my talk page because the conversation should hold together, what is a discussion standard. Maybe, to discuss this at the article talk page would be more appropriate, as the discussion should be open for other possible editors. Tool "your alerts" helps to call the mentioned users. --ŠJů (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for reviewing my recent posts and edits. Regarding the page for the 2018 short film Eight, a film about suicide starring, written, and directed by actress Mela Hudson, does the fact that Ms. Hudson tragically died suddenly and unexpectedly just days after releasing the film make it notable? Even more tragically, per the director of Ms. Hudson's previously released 2018 short film, Melancholia, Ms. Hudson committed suicide. This has not yet been publicly confirmed and so I will not post about that on Wikipedia, at least not at this time. I was going to also create a page for Melancholia, which was screened last week just a few days after Ms. Hudson's death and was nominated for 3 awards at the small, independent Art Is Alive film festival in New York City. In Melancholia, Ms. Hudson played a major supporting role and the main character, played by another actor, does commit suicide. If you do not believe that the film Melancholia is sufficiently notable, I will not finish creating the page. Thank you Rschwalb (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@Rschwalb: It certainly is tragic and ironic that a young artist has been lost in a method portrayed in her films, but given that her death hasn't appeared to have been covered yet by any reputable publication, her passing does not impart any notability to her films. For all practical purposes, the only thing that makes subjects notable on Wikipedia is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See Notability and The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Minor accolades at minor screenings generally do not count towards notability. Wikipedia is not IMDb, is not for everything, and we don't make articles merely because we as Wikipedians think they are important, or interesting, or might become notable some day (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and sometimes it is simply too soon for a stand-alone article). I have very strong doubts that an independent short film screened at a non-notable festival would meet any criteria for notability at this time. --Animalparty! (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Elizabeth Knight (disambiguation)
Hi Animal Party,
can you please help me. I have never created a disambiguation page but I'm seriously stuck. I tried to follow the Wiki instruction page for this but seem to have made a mess of it to be honest. Essentially I was creating a new article as part of the WomenInRed campaign for Elizabeth_Knight_(Q18593026) (I have no idea why there is letters and numbers after the name), as it was a red name page which I clicked to create. My only thought was that it was because a page with the same name already exists, but the woman is different (one is a scientist and one is a actress). So I thought I might be able to resolve the issue by creating a disambiguation.
Please can you help me correctly create a disambiguation page for the name Elizabeth Knight, and please help me fix the name of Elizabeth_Knight_(Q18593026) to remove the numbers.
@Animalparty: Thank you so much for your help! -I'm still learning a lot about wiki formatting and structure. Yes, don't worry, the page is a work in progress and I will be editing the text more to ensure it is in my own words.
Is it possible to make a disambiguation page for Elizabeth Knight? As it would be great if when you search in Wikipedia you get a list of all the person's with that name, rather then just going straight to the actresses wiki page, as I think people will struggle to find the Dr's page. Can you help me with this?
Thank you! Geneticcuckoo (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Animalparty: thanks. I have restored it, with a footnote.
As an aside, your analogy did seems a stretch. Unlike the IRI, the DRC is not an organisation headquartered in the U.S. and "closely aligned with the Republican Party": it is a sovereign state. Still, I take your point that the IRI is legally independent from the GOP (and that the DRC is, of course, legally independent from the Democratic Party of the U.S.). Zazpot (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I was actually contemplating the same. Give me a bit of time and I will create the new list - speednat (talk)
NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello Animalparty, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
Project news
The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).
@Sagecandor: I don't see why it won't remain on Wikipedia, as it satisfies WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG notability guidelines. I do have some constructive criticism regarding style and structure however. As a matter of style, I think it has way too many inline citations than needed, which impedes readability. You don't necessarily need a footnote every sentence, let alone 3 or 4. If a single reference backs up every fact or sentence in a paragraph, simply cite it once at the end of the paragraph. If five national news articles say the same non-controversial fact, and there are no direct quotes that demand attribution, simply pick one source to cite. See Wikipedia:Citation overkill for more info. Also, in general the prose is far too wordy (see Be concise). There is no minimum word count (even for Good Articles), so you can trim the padding. You can often drop the meta-commentary about sources: rather than state rather bland self-evident facts like "Wasted was reviewed in the journal/newspaper___... The review said...", simply focus on what the reviewers said. The notability will become apparent without having to list publications by name (which actually gives the impression of trying too hard to make an already notable subject appear more notable). And redundant/similar sentences can be combined to improve flow: for instance instead of "Alcoholics Anonymous is criticized repeatedly in the book, due to its reliance upon psychological themes to combat alcoholism.[2] The author criticizes Alcoholics Anonymous for not emphasizing physiological and biochemical causes of alcoholism.[2], you can simply write "Judge repeatedly criticizes Alcoholics Anonymous, claiming the organization overemphasizes psychological causes of alcoholism and fails to emphasize the physiological and biochemical.[2]" (the phrase "psychological themes" is vague). Lastly, I don't see the relevance of most of the "See also" entries or the Navbox templates: they give the appearance of trying to cram anything and everything related to addiction, alcoholism, and Mark Judge into an article that is fundamentally about a book, it need not be a one-stop resource for all things alcohol. I hope these tips help as the article develops! Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful suggestions ! I hope you are correct that I don't see why it won't remain on Wikipedia, as it satisfies WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG notability guidelines. I agree with you !!! Thank you, Sagecandor (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Help on Deleting Page
Hi, AnimalParty. You'd recently requested Beg for Mercy (album) to be deleted. Though it was indeed my first attempt at adding a page I realized i had read the wrong pages on how to create a page myself. I had added {{db-author}} to my edit on the page as instructed on Wikipedia:how to delete a page and I'm not sure if I'm doing it write. Could you help? Thanks! CJJuarez17 (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@CJJuarez17: Haha, no worries. When you typed {{db-author}}, you actually called the template on this page; in doing so, you were effectively requesting that this user talk page be deleted. I'm an administrator responding to that deletion request. I've fixed this by replacing {{db-author}} with {{tl|db-author}}, which produces: {{db-author}}. To answer your original question, I have now deleted the page Beg for Mercy (album) for you – your request worked! All the best, Mz7 (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Controversies related to Mehmet Oz
Hey Animalparty, I appreciate you coming in and adding to the Controversies related to Mehmet Oz page. It got "redirected" into Oz's entry (meaning the new content was just lost). You can see my Talk response here. Do you have any thoughts? PcPrincipal (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes I know. I did it in good faith was bold about it. I did fix it in navboxes etc. I might can fix it in the articles too if I find that needle in the haystack. But since the article is primarily about anyone with that name title at the time. Then it's not completely a wrong link. We just need the new links be used more. Same if we requested a page move etc. Jhenderson77720:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.
Hello Animalparty,
Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
Hello, Animalparty. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Hello, Animalparty. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
I added a hatnote to Plethodontidae to distinguish between the meaning of "salamander without lungs" and the common use of it to refer only to Plethodontidae. This way the redirect is preserved while readers looking for other kinds of salamanders without lungs can easily find it. What are your thoughts on this change? Wugapodes[thɑk][ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz]07:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: I think we should be wary of using Wikipedia to force changes in common names, or conflating common names and descriptive terms. The spotted salamander is not the only salamander with spots, bluebirds are not the only blue birds, nor is the striped skunk the only skunk with stripes. It would be an exercise in pedantry to add "for other skunks with stripes (or blue birds, or spotted salamanders), see X, Y, and Z", because those other species are not commonly called such except in purely descriptive uses. Similarly, the fact there is more than one clade of salamanders with reduced or absent lungs doesn't mean they are all commonly called "Lungless salamanders" by reputable sources. Many encyclopedias and textbooks routinely use "Lungless salamander" as a common name of Plethodontidae, even though reduced or absent lungs also occur in non-pletodontids like Ranodon, Onychodactylus, Rhyacotriton, Salamandrina, Euproctus, and Chioglossa.[1] I highly doubt that most people looking for those salamanders would be typing in "lungless salamander" first, so I think a disambiguating hatnote is a solution in search of a problem. I think it better to perhaps add a footnote in Plethodontidae denoting they are not the only salamanders lacking lungs, and perhaps add some clarifying discussion to Salamander#Respiration. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The change is because on another article the phrase "Lungless salamander" isn't uniformly used to refer to Plethodontidae, see List of examples of convergent evolution which is what prompted the change since I as a reader, was surprised that the page lungless salamander which I was linked to, did not contain information about the other genus of lungless salamanders I was expecting to find information about. It's not a solution in search of a problem, it's a solution to a problem I personally encountered while reading the encyclopedia. Further, the examples you give aren't compelling to me given the policy at WP:DAB. If you go to bluebird you'll see that it has a hatnote to bluebird (disambiguation) which lists Fairy-bluebird, a bird that is blue but not in the genus commonly referred to as "bluebirds". That striped skunk doesn't disambiguate other species of skunk with stripes doesn't negate that lungless salamanders should be disambiguated, it just means that one should also disambiguate that title as well. The disambiguation policy is very clear on this, "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead". The phrase "lungless salamander" could easily point to any salamander without lungs because the phrase literally means salamander without lungs. This isn't trying to force changes to the common name of plethodontidae, it's trying to make the encyclopedia easily navigable by following the article title and disambiguation policies. I agree with you that Plethodontidae is the primary topic, and lungless salamander should redirect there, but not disambiguating that phrase at all just makes the encyclopedia less useful. If there isn't a dab page and there isn't a hatnote, how would you propose readers like me, looking in an encyclopedia for information about salamanders without lungs, should find these other taxa you listed without having to be experts in the field and already know the exact taxon they're looking for? Wugapodes[thɑk][ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz]21:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.
Hello Animalparty, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Backlog
As of 21 October 2018[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
Community Wishlist Proposal
There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!
Project updates
ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
Thank you for your fix for the Public Art in Public Places article where incorrectly I had early on listed the org's "products" (online exhibits). I had thought to follow the example of other similar non-profit orgs' articles on W, and alas, I can see that was not approvpropriate. Thanks again for the trouble you took improve the article - it now looks like it meets W's standards for ciarity, citations, independent references, etc. Best, TashaB 21:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Natasha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha Behrendt (talk • contribs)
Input on my first entry?
Hi Animalparty
Thanks for your message on my talk page. I'd like to ask for advice and comments on my first entry. The Project for the Study of Alternative Education in South Africa
The page did not exist but was referenced from another page.
I have spent a lot of time on tutorials and I hope I made a good first attempt!
This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001reviews), Semmendinger (8,440reviews), PRehse (8,092reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016reviews), and Elmidae (3,615reviews). Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only sevenmonths, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.
The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019
At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
Training video
Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minutevideo was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.
Hello there, I moved your DYK nom. down to December 20th. You placed it in December 16th. However, the article wasn't even created then and couldn't be nominated on the 16th. In fact, you nominated the article on the 20th. Thanks! FiendYT★17:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@FiendYT: I'm under the impression that the date expansion begins determines placement: per WP:DYKNOM. The article was actually created (replaced redirect) on Feb 4 2018, but prior to Dec. 16 the article was a single sentence. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to say Thank You for your edits to The Phenomenauts. I believe it was you that was operating the Citation Bot, correct? There is no "thank" link on the edit for the bot, but I wanted to say I appreciate the help. Cheers! --Culix (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I do not understand your revert - there are so many sources talking about Greta´s Asperger´s syndrome, not only her personal explanation (in this case I think that this is quile reliable source), but for example following
Thank you for your great input about the Tim Tate page! I'm pretty new at this, and what I've been doing is going through existing Wikipedia pages (about artists) that have been already published by someone else (and approved) and copying their style, clearly under the false assumption on my part that those pages were in an "approved" style for notable artists' pages. It won't happen again - I will follow your input... and take a crack at improving the page(s) Q: IRT your note for "internationally acclaimed" - I was basing that on that description in several external sources, including international external sources? But I think that in this case perhaps you mean (by concrete example) something like that major London prize??? I'm just gonna remove that... And instead of "Critical acclaim" - would "Critical Comments" work??"... I noticed that in the Sam Gilliam page, they use notable examples - is that an acceptable practice? Thanks again for taking the time to review my input and your recommendations! --Artcontrarian (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Georgia Hopley you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
dear animalparty
thank you for your sage advice. It is a balancing act because earlier a wiki edit bot wanted a reference to the issue. I simply want to say that there is a cited published TV news story actually showing the very same original notes and it is discussed as part of the story. How would suggest I present or delete at this time? Not to be trite but if I were handling an original manuscript by Abraham Lincoln (personal notes) then there might not be a question. Do you agree or are there rules for that? Thank you very much for your observations. A learning process for me.
BARRY BARON (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
BARRY BARON, if a manuscript by Abraham Lincoln emerged, it would be authenticated and analyzed by professional historians, and their work would be published first in academic journals and then summarized by reliable newspapers and magazines. Then and only then would it be appropriate to discuss the document on Wikipedia, assuming that the document said something of substance. Cullen328Let's discuss it21:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
User:BARRY BARON - I agree with User:Cullen328. Maybe I don't understand what your objective is, but my understanding is that your objective is to report your research or your sister's research about the colors of a lost painting. This seems to be original research that should first be published in some other form, such as in an art journal. Similarly, handwritten notes by Abraham Lincoln would first, as Cullen says, be authenticated by historians. If that is the case, then Wikipedia is the wrong medium in which to report your research until it has first been reported in some other source. If I and other editors have misunderstood, please explain again what your objective and plan is. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.
Discussions of interest
Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828 Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
I'm not sure about whether it is worth moving the article. Sources from the early 1900s seem to use either "Harrye" or "Mrs. A. S. C...." In sources with a female audience (the Women's Who's Who, club newsletters), she seems to use "Harrye". Perhaps by the end of her life she preferred "Harrie" as being easier for people to spell? Have you found a lot of sources from her lifetime that use "Harrie"? Brianyoumans (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for George H. Garrey. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks!
I’m still in the learning process here on Wikipedia so I appreciate you taking the time to point out for me the importance of using the edit summary box. I’ll be sure to change my preferences and to make use the feature each time I perform an edit! Hope you have a great day. — Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Neighborhood Nationalist: Welcome, and have fun editing. There's a lot of various etiquette, style guidelines, and policies, all in the aim of making Wikipedia more useful and reliable. And per Help:Edit summary, edit summaries are normally expected and strongly encouraged, especially with large or significant edits, and probably most useful in articles, but I don't think anyone faithfully provides a summary for every single edit they make (I sure don't). They are helpful tools for tracking changes. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The article Georgia Hopley you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Georgia Hopley for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your help on getting my page on "Her Kind" published! It is my first article and I really appreciate your assistance. Judsonts (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates#rank, "subterclassis" is given the same rank as "parvclassis" – this works in the sense of preventing the taxonomy templates that use this rank showing rank order errors. Are there clear examples of its being used between "infraclassis" and "parvclassis", as per your recent edit to Template:Taxonomic ranks? If so, the arbitrary rank values used in the autotaxobox system can be adjusted – "parvclassis" could be made 1395. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: As far as I know (which may not be very far), "parvclass" is used predominantly (if not exclusively) among ornithologists. The "subterclass" seems to be in vogue among a few invertebrate groups, and I've never seen it applied to vertebrates. Neither ranks are very widely used, and the usage of one doesn't mandate usage of the other. I have no idea which one arbitrarily 'outranks' the other, as they seem to occur in separate taxonomic realms, but subterclass, when used, is ranked below infraclass [2] (or just subclass [3] if a split-happy taxonomist hasn't picked away enough yet), and before (super)order. See Millipede#Classification for an infraclass with two subterclasses. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks – if both never get used in the same classification, then giving them the same arbitrary numerical rank works fine, so let's leave it as it is. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
WBC
Hi there, Thanks for your messages and comments. It was on my 'to-do' list, but you have saved me the trouble! The article in an earlier form reinforced a confusion which has existed in secondary sources for some time, and this made a really verifiable explanation of who was whom rather necessary. Primary sources were unfortunately the only way to get to a verifiable disambiguation. However it is not heavily burdened with them, and they do their work - and your separation is successful. Thanks for taking an interest. I am just going to import a full reference from one to the other where your split has left a short ref dangling. Cheers. Eebahgum (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Animalparty, I love you like a brother, but please don't ever think that "giving" an enslaved child a name is in any way a "gift". You say "forced upon her" is not "in the sources"--but one wonders whether a 12-year old girl taken from her homeland could refuse that "gift". As for "sources", you may have looked at the Smithsonian article, for instance, but there really aren't many sources, and the best one, that all the recent ones are based on, does not use that phrase, which is really infinitely insulting. So in good Wikipedia fashion I went with possibly consensual phrasing over the truth, which is of course that she was kidnapped and some white dude with a ton of name put a name on here that marked her his legal property. Surely you saw his name was Smith. What else his ownership meant is not recorded, outside of field and house work. As for "emotionally charged"--maybe if you knew Selma or Bogue Chitto and knew the history here you might feel differently, and you'd think this more realistic than "emotionally charged". And I know you're a scientist of a different ilk than I am, but I do believe that Derrida's notion of The Gift applies here, and "a good deed [a gift] must be accompanied by a suitably just response"--but surely you know that the only possible response someone like Redoshi could have given, if at that time she spoke English at all, would have been "yes master". I'm not here to pick a fight with you, though I think you were seriously wrong; I just want to tell you that writing her story was very educational to me, and I thought I was pretty smart. And I hope that the person who nominated Category:Kidnapped African children learned something too, though I doubt it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: I never implied giving someone a name is a gift: you did. Your argument seems based on the assumption that the word "give" must imply the transfer of a "gift" in a positive sense. One can give someone a name or a present or a hug, but can also give someone herpes, a pink slip, or a bad time. Secondly, the phrase "Forced the name on" implies the presence of resistance, which might reasonably be inferred but for which I have seen no evidence. Do we know if Redoshi objected to the name she was labeled, or faced punishment if she didn't use it? Certainly Redoshi was forced into many things, a slave ship, slavery, child marriage, etc, but we need to avoid using loaded terms in Wikipedia's voice that are not present in the sources. Was "Redoshi" itself a name 'forced' on her by her parents at birth? Cheers. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Wow. That last one especially is a gem, Animalparty. Way to ridicule the matter. I hope you will stay away from politically loaded articles. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.18
Hello Animalparty,
WMF at work on NPP Improvements
Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP
Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
Backlog drive coming soon
Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
Thanks for your message re the Frank Barnard (author) page - this is just to let you know I am taking notice and will be addressing the additional sources etc asap. I appreciate the guidance!
I reorganized the Joanne Berger-Sweeney article somewhat to try and integrate the Controversies section into the Career section. I just realized that I accidentally erased the box you had put there stating that the section might compromise the neutrality of the article. I came here to ask if it's OK to remove -- but I've already removed it & I'm not sure how to put it back. If you get the chance, can you take a look at the article & see if it's OK now? If not, I would appreciate some guidance on how to make it more appropriate. Thanks. QuakerSquirrel (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Newspaper SIAs
Hello. I've just changed Daily Intelligencer from a set index to a disambiguation page. The page was already in dab format. The change allows incoming wikilinks (which are almost always mislinks intended for one particular publication of that name) to appear on various reports and get fixed promptly. I was about to make a similar changes to other SIAs when I noticed that you had changed them from dabs last year. Is there a particular reason for keeping them as SIAs, or can we change them to dabs so the links can get fixed? There won't be many links at the moment, as I trawled through the SIAs and fixed several hundred recently, but they do accumulate quickly and need regular manual searching if the page is not a dab. Thanks, Certes (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Madame Modjeska-Beth Holmgren
Thanks for everything on Wikipedia, and Wikidata, in regards to Holmgren and the Modjeska book. You did good. — Maile (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019
Hello Animalparty,
WMF at work on NPP Improvements
More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.
QUALITY of REVIEWING
Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors.
The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.
Backlog
The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.
Move to draft
NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.
Notifying users
Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.
PERM
Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.
Other news
School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
I noticed that you have reworked Shada from a redirect to a disambiguation page. I have no problem with that change, but I do have a problem with the 134 links to disambiguation pages you have created with that change. Can you please fix that issue? The Bannertalk10:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jane Amsterdam you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrLinkinPark333 -- MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Animalparty. I've noticed that you've recently taken an interest in improving articles that I've been able to take to B-Class status (through the formal review process of the Milhist WikiProject). While I appreciate your enthusiasm for improving articles, I'm writing to ask that you be more careful when adding, replacing, or removing images from articles, particularly when they've already been assessed as B-Class or better. A great deal of research and thought went into not just the selection of images for these articles, but into their specific placement on the article pages (so that the image would be placed alongside relevant text in the article). Unfortunately, your edit today on the Wilmon W. Blackmar article removed an image that had a very specific purpose. Although your edit summary indicates that you were removing "redundant/extraneous images", you actually removed a very important one. The image in question (File:Civil War veteran Wilmon Whilldin Blackmar with Grant's chair) - Partridge, Boston and vicinity LCCN2017659688.jpg) shows Blackmar standing next to the chair that Ulysses S. Grant sat while accepting the surrender of General Robert E. Lee at Appomattox at the close of the American Civil War. I mentioned in the article that Grant's chair was willed to the Smithsonian by Blackmar upon his death in 1905 (in the same section where I had originally placed the image of Blackmar with the chair) in order to help illustrate the historic importance of Blackmar's donation. I've gone ahead and replaced the image rather than reverting your edit. I just wanted to write to explain why I did so and ask that, moving forward, you be more careful with the editing of images. Thanks so much for your cooperation. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Animalparty: Thanks so much for the apology. My apologies for the long response I'm about to make but, unfortunately, you've stepped into a bit of a hornet's nest here. This issue of Blackmar photographs has already been debated and, I'd hoped, settled. It was the subject of a very contentious discussion over on Wikimedia Commons back in 2018 that then spilled over onto Wikipedia. In summary, I had been looking for images of Blackmar as part of my upgrading of the article for Milhist, and had posted several of the public domain images I found on Commons. During my research, I ruled out the very image you're now recommending for the Infobox "to prevent visual redundancy" because it wasn't in the public domain at the time (and still isn't). While this was going on and while I was in the midst of editing the Blackmar article, another editor suddenly started changing images on the Blackmar article without initiating a talk page or user page discussion first (while the article was going through Milhist review, which was causing problems with completing the review). At the same time, that same user had also flagged one of the images I'd posted (an old newspaper image of Blackmar, which wasn't great quality, but also wasn't the worst quality image ever posted on Commons, but which was historically important). This editor claimed he was trying to get the image I'd posted deleted because it was "low quality" (and also used other disparaging terms and made other accusations which were later determined to be inappropriate and unfounded during the dispute resolution). Even more troubling, that same editor was trying to get that image I'd posted deleted while posting his own images of Blackmar on Commons. In a nutshell, he edited the image of Blackmar with Grant's chair to create his own version for Commons (so that his version of the image could be posted on the Wikipedia article); he then also posted several other images that he had found on other websites (two of which were clearly marked as not being in the public domain on those websites). It was a very difficult and frustrating time, but the dispute resolution eventually went in my favor and the adjudicators also took the step of cautioning the other editor about his behavior. So, long story short, the photos you encountered when you first began making changes to this article really were well thought out. If I could have replaced the main photo in the Infobox with the image you're now suggesting, I would have, but it's simply not possible because that image is not in the public domain even though it's still posted on Commons. (It was taken from a family photo collection and posted with permission on another website with a "may not be reposted elsewhere" disclaimer. It really should be removed from Commons, but I just didn't have the energy to suggest it after having to fight such a brutal battle over the historically important public domain image I was trying to save.) Again, my apologies for the long reply, but I felt you needed to have a better understanding of why I chose the images I did and why I continue to monitor the article. (I really don't want to see a copyright issue crop up when there are already public domain images posted to this article that, while not perfect, do get the job done.) 47thPennVols (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@Animalparty: The image you're referring to is NOT in the public domain. I already looked at it in 2018 and ruled it out. (That's one of the two images that I mentioned above that were part of the discussion. The other editor took it and a second image from a website which had a very clear disclaimer that said those images could not be reposted anywhere; that editor then reposted it on Commons in violation of that disclaimer while he was trying to have my image deleted.) The image you've now proposed twice, while aesthetically pleasing, is an apparent copyright violation that will likely, at some point in the future, be removed from Commons. And that image deletion would leave a hole in a very important part of this article. Again, I appreciate your enthusiasm for improving articles and understand that you think you're finding "new images" I haven't seen, but please believe me when I say I have researched this thoroughly. (I actually have extensive experience in archival research with text and images, as well as with copyright issues, and take my research very seriously, whether I'm doing it for Wikipedia or for university work.) 47thPennVols (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
@47thPennVols: I'm afraid I don't understand, or we're talking about different things. I agree that one of the three images is questionable, but the other were indisputably published in the United States before 1924: any issues of where the images came from before that, or which websites posted them later, are immaterial from the perspective of copyright expiration (one cannot claim copyright or dictate usage of a public domain image unless they create a derivative work that is original enough to warrant new copyright protection: any claims on demonstrable public domain items can be simply ignored). See below, with links to original pre-1924 sources. If you still have reason to believe the first two are not free, I'm curious why. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
this is the only image with unverified publication history, though it may well be PD
@Animalparty: I was unable to view the images you believe are acceptable. (The links didn't work when I clicked on them.) If you can provide working links, I'll be happy to take a look; although, I must say, I am quite puzzled as to why you're continuing to press this issue when there are so many other articles on Wikipedia that are stub or start-class that are missing images entirely or have genuinely poor quality images. Those articles, IMHO, are far more in need of upgrading than this B-Class article with acceptable images. So this constant back-and-forth that we've been engaging in seems to be, IMHO, to be a profound waste of time, and has been, quite frankly, disruptive to the other Wikipedia editing projects I've been trying to complete. 47thPennVols (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
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.
Thanks - I wasn't sure about being able to upload as free a photo of a painting if I didn't take the photo. I wasn't sure who owns which copyright - the whole thing is a confusion for me. Odds are there are many pictures which could be made free that I have uploaded as non-free for this reason. So I'm delighted to see someone adjust the image rights. ☕ Antiqueightchatter14:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Antiqueight: You're welcome! Paintings are admittedly a bit harder to deal with than photographs or printed works in terms of copyright, as it's harder to determine the time of first publication (which may be decades after creation). I went ahead and moved the image to Commons (here): note that there is uncertainty as to whether the subject is Elizabeth Yorke (1763–1858) or Mrs Agneta Yorke (1740-1820). --Animalparty! (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah - I saw the uncertainty but went with the majority of sites- more sites identified the sitter as Elizabeth. I wasn't sure what to do with that. Initially I found one of each but then I found a bunch more (and I don't know which was citing which)....BUT one of the sites talked about how the painting had been over painted black possibly after the death of her son and then later removed by the owner and I thought it seemed like they were confident which person it was. But yeah - photos cause me more confusion generally due to the date of publication and I default to the thought that at least I know when the subject died.... ☕ Antiqueightchatter15:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
XCORPIIIO Article
Hello,
I am Kylejinx, the person who created the XCORPIIIO article.
Concerning your concerns about "insufficient evidence of notability," there are not presently many articles on the entity as of yet. There are a few concerning his acting in one of the films he has done. However, an IMDb, along with his gaining 30,000 streams in only a month, being recognized by Pandora as a promising artist, and his being associated with Alicia Keys, Kerry Brothers, Ann Mincieli, Stuart White, and Kumasi (all grammy award recognized individuals) is not enough evidence of notability? The former 3 points all being totally independent of him in that they are based on facts and numbers only. He is also recognized by google (as, when you look him up, you find the information box to the right of the page). If there is anything that I need to provide a screenshot of, I can do it; I just don't understand how there isn't enough evidence to prove his notability.
Concerning the conflict of interest concern, I do not see how the article I wrote is biased in a negative or positive way; I feel as though I wrote the entire thing based only off of facts.
"Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network."
XCORPIIIO's music has been placed in rotation on major radio stations within Pandora, due to its success upon release, including Beyonce Radio, Rihanna Radio, Lady Gaga Radio, Ariana Grande Radio, and Bruno Mars Radio.
I look forward to hearing back and, hopefully, being able to resolve this matter. I worked very hard on that page for 8 hours, and did everything I could to prove notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylejinx (talk • contribs) 04:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Kylejinx: regarding the article Xcorpiiio: I've left several messages on your Talk Page. Please read the introductory links therein. Are you by any way affiliated with Mr. Hopkins, in either a personal or professional manner? You claim to be the photographer of all the photographs of Hopkins you've uploaded to Commons. If you are being paid to edit this article, you must disclose this per WP:PAID policy. Everything in an article must be sourceable to previously existing works, per verifiability policy. We do not publish new ideas or information here based on personal knowledge of a subject, per the policy of no original research. The article you wrote has large blocks of personal information with no references, suggesting you have personal knowledge of the subject, which may bias your perception of what is neutral (even if you're not acting as an agent). The references you have added are almost all affiliated sites (the artist's own website, or streaming sites hosting his work, or agency sites which are solely in the business of promoting the subject), which do not count towards establishing notability (meaning that it is not evident that the world at large has significantly taken an interest in the subject). Wikipedia is NOT a means of promoting up-and-coming artists: people who have Wikipedia pages have already demonstrated notability by significant coverage in multiple sources that are independent of the subject and have a reputation for accuracy and editorial oversight (e.g. newspapers, magazines, and reputable websites). It is very likely that your article, no matter how long you've worked on it, will be deleted: as a courtesy I moved it to draft space, where it could be developed (and hopefully better references added), but you insisted on moving it back to main space, where harsher editors than me will ultimately determine its fate. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Animalparty Firstly, I was unaware that you had moved it into Draft Space. I am new to wikipedia, and so assumed that I accidentally did that. I didn't even receive notification of your three messages until hours after. It has been moved back into draft space.
At least half of the sites that I have provided are in no way affiliated with the entity known as XCORPIIIO (Pandora, Spinnup, IMDb). Spinnup tracked the number of streams; no way could that be tampered with or done in his favor. Pandora recognized him as a promising artist according to their system's algorithm; there is no way that could've been done other than by them. Finally, IMDb is another site that merely lists the achievements of an entity. That page is not an IMDb Pro page, which insists that he was not included in the process of making it. Additionally, as I have proved above, his music has been played on major radio stations (via Pandora), which is a merit of notability by Wikipedia's standards. According to the the rules of the music notability article, if at least ONE of the rules is satisfied, then that is enough for the person to be considered notable enough to have a wikipedia article written about them.
I am indeed a paid contributor. How can I disclose this?
Additionally, should I then just reduce the article to things that I can link to "previously existing works"? Would that allow for it to continue existing?
Thank you for your contribution to this discussion; I am hoping we will be able to figure a way for the article to remain on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylejinx (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Perkele (disambiguation). I do not think that Perkele (disambiguation) fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because This disambiguates 2 page, so G14 does not apply. I request that you consider not re-tagging Perkele (disambiguation) for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs01:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@DESiegel: No, it disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and ends in "(disambiguation)", per the template. When a primary topic (Perkele) shares a name with only one other article (Perkele (band), a hatnote at the primary topic is sufficient, and it is frivolous, redundant , and inefficient to create tertiary disambiguation pages that nothing links to. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
When a dab page links to 2 or more pages, even if one is a primary topic, WP:CSD#G14does not apply. CSDs are narrow, bright-line criteria, and when there is any doubt that one applies, it doesn't. G1`4 says, in pertinant part: This applies to disambiguation pages which either (1) have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page; or (2) regardless of title, disambiguate zero extant Wikipedia pages. If a disambiguation page links to only one article and does not end in (disambiguation), it should be changed to a redirect. It says nothing about 1 primary topic and 1 other page. WP:TWODABS might be read to suggest that there not be a dab page in such a case, but that would be a matter for a deletion discussion, not a speedy deletion. Feel free to start such a discussion. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs02:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
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 806 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
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.
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.
(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.
. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 
, 
, 
, 
.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of David Johnson (photographer) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Georgia Hopley for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
; see Talk:Georgia Hopley for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Published in 1911. similar but not identical to the first.
this is the only image with unverified publication history, though it may well be PD
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
_Lindsay_(1763-1858),_Countess_of_Hardwicke.jpg){kind=link}
; see Talk:Jane Amsterdam for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrLinkinPark333 -- MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
