Jump to content

User talk:Atsme/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Your email

Hi Atsme, and thanks for your email! I can sympathise with you about getting your content removed from Timothy Drury, although its removal does seem to be backed up by Wikipedia's policy of not being an indiscriminate collection of information. Still, there could be room in the article for some of the information you added in some form. I suggest opening a discussion on the article talk page and trying to work it out there. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Pamela Geller

Why not start by taking Pamela Geller to BP:BLPN with some specific policy related issues? Don't comment on other editors, that rarely helps unless there is something egregious. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I will certainly give it a try. Thank you, Dougweller. Atsme (talk)

Your recent edits

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

GA reassessment

With the recent controversey on the talk page along with the time since it's first review I thought it necessaey to put Anjem Choudary up for a reassessment.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Anjem_Choudary/1 That is where the assesment will take place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WIAGA#What_is_a_good_article.3F that is good article criteria.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User Issues

I'm not getting involved in a soapopera. WP:DRN is not for user conduct. It's for content. I forget to where to take that to. I suggest contacting a Admin. Do not contact them to handle this situation. Contact them and ask them where this situation should be addressed. The appropriate noticeboard. This conduct issue that you think you have is seperate from the content issue that is going on. As for the content issue I would recommend that you just walk away for the time being. Let the heat cool. In the future I would recommend that you keep your career to yurself. You being a writer doesn't make you a special wikipedia editor. Don't email me. Post messages on my talk page.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Atsme (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

GAR

A GAR is based on good article Criteria and the additional criteria added under good article assessment. A community review isn't about settling disputes. It is about asking if an article meets good article Criteria. If it doesn't it's about fixing those issues. It's not about conduct issues or content disputes. If you have a conduct issue that actually does need to be resolved go to the propoer noticeboard. If your sure which ask a mod. Here are the noticeboards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Noticeboard_links . I personally don't you have a case. Your issues with user conduct however is seperate from the content dispute. Keep them seperate. This isn't personal so don't make it personal.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary

Serialjoepsycho, your reason for blaming me for causing a personal attack against me is casuistic, and inappropriate. I stated my occupation AFTER Bencherlite's comment on the revert: "Badly written/sourced/formatted and POV. No thank you". His comment was a condescending personal critique of my work, and why I felt under attack. What followed was said in my own defense. The proper procedure would have been for either or both Bencherlite and PoD to begin civil discourse on the Talk page. I don't see that ever happening in light of the comments PoD made on his own Talk page regarding WP:OWN. His hostility toward other editors is made quite apparent in his comments, not only to me, but to Coretheapple, and Robinr22. In fact, these are the kinds of events that are the catalyst for online articles that discredit Wikipedia as a reliable source. Just read the article, Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia. Based on first-hand experiences with the Islamophobia series, it also appears WP is turning into a propaganda platform for Islamic extremism. Atsme (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well it was badly written and poorly sourced. I looked at the diff so I can't tell you whether it was badly formatted or not. I don't care why you made it personal after they mentioned that. But after you made it personal it didn't get any more civil. They should have made it civil? They along with you. So they poisioned the well for you but then you poisoned the well back. It's civil now so move on. Don't argue from authority. Yours or anyone elses authority unless there actually is a binding decision. You were fighting tooth and nail so you could call AC a extremist directly but you issue with a source calling IPT Islmophobic. Seriously. And hey maybe you have an argument for Islamophobia being called something else but that conversation goes somewhere else like the islamophobic article. Don't go on some reverse racism philosophical BS that doesn't even matter to wikipedia policy.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme - There are some articles that indeed serve as a platform for islamist propaganda. An example is the article Unite Against Fascism, where a tag-team has been fighting for years to erase every possible critical view (Azad Ali is mentioned in the lede as I added it recently and the gang probably hasn't noticed yet). The fact is, the UAF was founded as a far-left front organization and now it serves the aim of de-legitimizing any criticism against rampant Islamic extremism in the country as 'fascism'. It is really telling, that one of the top functionaries of this 'antifascist' group is an admirer of al-Qaida ideologist Abdullah Yusuf Azzam and has called killing British soldiers his religious duty.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lokalkosmopolit - I agree. We're facing a serious issue that needs to be addressed. Atsme (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Anjem Choudary. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=I submitted a PP. This is a WP:OWN and WP:Civility issue. It now needs Arbitration"}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Atsme. You have new messages at Roscelese's talk page.
Message added 16:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Removing the Islamophic template from IPT while there is an RFC opened about that subject is disruptive. I'd have to ask you to not that again.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have turned this over for mediation. WP:HOUNDING, WP:HARASSMENT If anyone is being disruptive, it is the WP:TAGTEAM. Atsme ☯ talk 16:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Maybe at some point we'll be lucky enough to find out where, how, and why this mediation is taking place!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I've actually got nothing from the mediation commitee to show this. Where is it at?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme: Where is this supposed mediation supposed to be? It's not at Medcom to it's not informal mediation. It's not over at dispute resolution. Besides your statement on a number of peoples talk pages there in indication that there is and mediation. Where is it taking place at?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho:I sent them an email request, and received a response stating that it is under review. That's all I know. Atsme ☯ talk 01:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Guess what. You didn't send it to mediation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Mediation

Here's where to sign up for formal mediation: WP:RFM. Here's the mediation policy: WP:MP. Mediation is for content disputes. Your baseless accusations are not for there as they don't deal with conduct disputes. If you would like to take your accusations somewhere try wp:ani. You go there and tell them all about the tags teams and what other user conduct and conspiracy you have.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I really would prefer to work through this with you and Alf as a collaborative team. My email for mediation will probably be disregarded because I did it all wrong, but it doesn't matter. I just want to make IPT a good article. Atsme ☯ talk 07:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Pursuant to my earlier warning, I have reported you at WP:ANI. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atsme:WP:ANI is the Administrators' noticeboard for Incidents. You have been reported there for your behavoir. Go and see Wikipedia:ANI#Atsme_and_BLP_violationsSerialjoepsycho (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho: Thank you. There was no reason for her to do that. Her accusations are groundless. I have responded on ANI. Atsme ☯ talk 07:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Technology articles

I have an article on a technology company and a device it makes. They are currently c-class. And they both need a clean up. There's no real controversey for these devices so if you use quality sources you shouldn't have much issue with anyone. Both articles are fairly interesting or their topics are. Current and future technology basically.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Thank you for the opportunity. Alf is helping me introduce a new BLP, and the initial setup and research is pretty time consuming, but I'll be happy to look at your tech article. Atsme ☯ talk 11:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
If your interested Roku, Inc. and roku. Both are C-class.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Atsme. You have new messages at The Herald's talk page.
Message added 13:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Herald 13:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Atsme. You have new messages at The Herald's talk page.
Message added 14:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Herald 14:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Info boxes

User:The Herald How do I add those fun user boxes like so many users have on their user pages? Are they templates, or is there a list of them with the codes somewhere? Atsme ☯ talk 16:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind - I found it. They're called "user boxes". Atsme ☯ talk 17:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Changed Topic to Pictures

@The Herald: I want to upload some of my own photographs for use on my user page and was wondering if I had to upload via Wiki Commons, or if it can be done right from my page? Do my pictures have to be available for all to use under a Commons license? Atsme ☯ talk 17:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure you can but only if it entirely your own work,i.e, created by you. If yes, go ahead and upload it in Commons or here in wiki. But I prefer commons as they can be useful in other wikis if it can be used in any article. If it is not your work, get the copyright information and I will then try to clear the problem. Happy editing!! Herald 09:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
@The Herald: Ok, I understand about my photos. In the interim, I'm in the embryonic stages of a BLP on a notable physician, and contacted TTUHSC to get a photo of him for the article. An assistant sent me 4 different photos via email, and offered others of him working. I uploaded the photo to Commons thinking it was a public domain photo shot by TTUHSC staff for press releases, but now I'm concerned that I may have jumped the gun. After I uploaded the photo and started my article, I contacted the assistant to send me a CC release, and the response I got back was to not upload the photo until she checked further. Now I don't know what to do, or how to do it. Should I remove the photo all together? Atsme☯ talk 10:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
No..let it be there. I say that you may find an alternate with high resolution such as http://www2.kenes.com/wip/scientific/PublishingImages/speakers/Racz.jpg and ask to sent the aurthor for permissions into OTRS. If not, ask TTUHSC staff for an OTRS permission. Herald 10:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)If you don't mind my butting in, I think it's better to upload pix to en.wikipedia at Special:upload and use a {{keep-local}} template on them, which allows them to be copied to commons but prevents the deletion of files here. I've had so much trouble with weird commons editors sniping and deleting pictures based on their peculiar interpretations of obscure legal principles. If a local copy is kept the file can still be copied there, and is automatically. This has nothing to do with permissions, of course, and Herald has that right.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: thank you!! Did you check out how I've upgraded my user page? I think it's fun. I just have to be careful to not overdo it. Atsme☯ talk 12:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yep, agree with Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. Nice design on user page. You may overdo it. Ever checked mine..?? It's damly overdone. I think this page may prove useful for you. Herald 13:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
@The Herald: yes, I have. That's where I've been getting some of my ideas (and codes) - hope that's ok? I like what you did - it's an informative, fun page. Question - after I upload a file here, and then realize it's bigger than what I wanted, can I delete it and start over, or is there a way to change the image size? Atsme☯ talk 13:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
You can resize it in the wikicode to put it in the article, e.g. [[file.jpg|thumb|200px|caption]] makes the width 200px in the article. This can be any value. You can also put a left/right field in there to change the side of the page it appears on, but it defaults to right.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: Does the string have to include "thumb", or is the pixel info enough? Atsme☯ talk 13:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
BTW..you can't delete the file, but nominate it for deletion. Well, if you want to reduce the size, you may crop it in your PC and then overwrite the file by leaving an edit summary discussing the changes you made. It may be done by uploading a newer version of your file. Just scroll down to File history in the file page and upload the corrected version. Else, leave the pixels there. Its always good to have a high res pic.Herald 13:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It's better to put the thumb field in because that makes the picture a thumbnail link to the actual file, so that the reader can click on it and see it at full resolution if desired. As always, try it both ways in your sandbox and see what kind of effects you can get.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer a thumb. Herald 13:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Got it!! Thank you both!! Atsme☯ talk 15:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Old Abandoned Lighthouse.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Old Abandoned Lighthouse.jpg, which you've attributed to Photography on Bonaire. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Signpost

Signpost logo
Hello! Atsme,

You are invited to subscribe to the Signpost, a community-written newspaper about the English Wikipedia and larger Wikimedia community. Please join us!

Herald 14:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

How to test the archiving thing

Hey, OK. If you set the archive field old(90d) to 7 just for a day or two, the bot should archive some stuff so you can be sure it's working, and then after that, if you want to, you can set it back to 90. Just a thought... how's the article going?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: I set it to 7, but I'm not sure what to put in the brackets that say TALKPAGENAME in the code. I also copy-pasted the first archive into Archive 1, so will the auto archive created an Archive 2 in 7 days? What do I do with old archives that are sorted by date? Atsme☯ talk 04:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what will happen. Why don't you wait a day or two and see what the bot does and then after it starts creating archives you can copy/paste the old archived stuff into those, which I know won't mess up the bot. How does that sound?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I already copy/pasted the old archives to Archive 1. There wasn't that much. The old archives still exist by date under User talk:Atsme/Archive/{dates}, and I have no clue what to do about them. I have no problem waiting for the bot to do its thing - actually welcome it!! I am coded out. My article is progressing slooowly, but at least it's progressing. Dr. Racz is an innovator with a career that spans 50+ yrs, so there are lots of different procedures he has pioneered, and medical equipment he has invented/patented. He has also garnered many prestigious honors & awards, authored numerous publications, and 5 books. Trying to condense it all is not an easy task. It also looks like a host of other articles will be spinning off his biography. Atsme☯ talk 04:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


Talkback

Hello, Atsme. You have new messages at The Herald's talk page.
Message added 12:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Herald 12:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ready for input on the Racz BLP

@The Herald: and @Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: I think the article is close to being ready for submission. I wasn't sure if I should include links to his books at the bottom of the article, leave as is, or make note somewhere in the article as to how many books & publications he's authored. I tried to condense all the awards and recognition he's received as best I could. I know prose is best, but this may be a situation needing a bulleted list? You may find some redundancies here and there, so let me know what you think should be deleted. Alf, you are a master at what I consider "tight, on point phraseology", so perform your magic as you deem necessary. Atsme☯ talk 00:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will be happy to go over it. How would you like me to do it? One thing that occurs to me is to copy the whole thing to another sandbox in your userspace and edit it like I would if it were in article space with edit summaries and so on, and we can talk about it on the talk page of the copy as if it were in article space. If we get that version good and ready you can move it into article space. Another possibility is for me to make comments on the talk page of your sandbox version and you can make the edits. The first seems easier to me for me because I think better when I'm actually editing, but it's up to you. Maybe some other method?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: whatever works best for you. My first thoughts are for you to copy into another sandbox and edit. I can simply split the windows on my laptop, and do a side by side comparison when the time comes. Atsme☯ talk 20:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: Just found the following bio - they used a bulleted list - Michael_E._DeBakey Atsme☯ talk 01:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, I put another copy here: User:Atsme/sandbox 2 as we discussed.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
How's this working for you? How about every time you mess with the version in the first sandbox, I paste it over into the second sandbox so that it's synced with your changes? Or are you feeling confident about it to do the rest yourself?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
You have been an excellent unofficial mentor, and I feel ready to remove the training wheels as long as I know you're not too far away in case I fall. I would put a happy face here, but I've read too many comments by editors who think it's tacky. I'll sweep the article again, tighten it as needed, add more pictures, then if it's ok with you, ask you to review it one more time before I hit submit. Does that work for you? Atsme☯ talk 12:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Sounds excellent. I'll await your call to action!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing. Make sure it's in at least a few categories when you move it into mainspace; you don't want to add [[Category:whatever]] before you move it, because it'll actually make your sandbox show up in the category, so you can just put them all between nowiki tags until you're ready to move it. Also you should make sure to have a default sort key so he's listed by last name in the categories, and that's explained here: WP:NAMESORT, or you can just look at the markup in other bios and copy it. It's also good to start the talk page off with a few wikiprojects, because redlinked talk pages seem to attract hostile page reviewers. Good luck!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: Ok, I've added categories, and a list of books, and a few more photos. I'm still waiting for photos of the Racz Catheter, and blunt needle, but they can be added later. Will you give it one last review, and if you don't see any glaring errors, I would think it's ready to go. I don't quite understand what you meant by "starting off the talk page with a few wikiprojects." Can you help me with that? Oh, and while the article is in the sandbox, do I just click on "submit your draft for review"?

OMG, whatever you do, do NOT click on submit draft for review. That'll get you way too much help or none at all or something. You're a full-fledged editor here and you can move your articles into mainspace yourself when you're ready just like everybody else can. No one needs permission to create an article. Just remove all the templates that make it not look like a regular article and then use the "move" function from the drop-down menu under the little down-arrow at the top of the page and move it to its new title, which will be in mainspace if it's just the guy's name. WikiProjects coordinate articles by subject and also evaluate them for various reasons. You bring articles to their attention by adding their banners at the top of the talk page. For this guy you probably want something like:

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|listas=Racz, Gabor|class=|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=}}

{{WikiProject Medicine|class=|importance=}}

{{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|TX=yes|TX-importance=}}

}}

Paste that into a sandbox and hit preview to see what it will do; it's better not to assess your own articles. I find it's good to do this because (a) it automatically lets interested people know about your new article, and (b) it makes it look more legit to new page patrollers if the talkpage isn't redlinked. I will look over the article within the next few hours.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Some more comments

  1. I'm worried that the caption for the Hungarian Revolution image is original research. I'm not sure what to do about this. I take it that you know it's him because he told you?
  2. I would delete the quotebox, or at least be ready for someone else to delete it. It's the kind of thing that does get removed from articles.
  3. You should only capitalize the initial word in section titles unless there are proper nouns, e.g. "Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)" should be "Complex regional pain syndrome."
  4. You should make sure that the article has some incoming links. This won't be too hard, you can start with adding them here: Texas_Tech_University_Health_Science_Center#Faculty and World Institute of Pain. This is important for new pages so they get integrated into the encyclopedia. You can probably find other places to add links; you can do this either before or after you move the page into mainspace. If you do it before they'll just be redlinks until you move the page, at which point they'll automatically go blue (or green, or whatever it is). If you do it after it may prevent people at those pages from hissing at you for adding redlinks. Be prepared to put sources where you put the name. Two is enough to start, but more is better.
  5. I don't think it's a good idea to add it to a lot of redlinked categories like you've done. That can be appropriate sometimes, but not usually that many where this will be the only article. If you think those categories should exist it's probably better to find other pages to add them to, create, and then add this page into them.
  6. That's about it. It's quite good work. I might have fewer adjectives here and there, but that's clearly a matter of style. You should be proud of yourself.

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yay!! What makes me feel most proud and indeed honored is the fact the accolades came from you! Thank you again, and again! Atsme☯ talk 11:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: Ok, I pasted the code into a new sandbox, and there is one redlink in the template in the first line of Article requests: Create an article from the needed articles lists. What should I do?
  1. I changed the caption to 1956 Hungarian Revolution.
  2. I reluctantly deleted the quote box, but think I understand why they are discouraged in an encyclopedia.
  3. Fixed the headings.
  4. Will add the incoming links.
  5. Deleted the redlinked categories. I'm planning to work on the World Institute of Pain article, and see what other articles in that field can be created, cleaned up, expanded, and/or linked. Atsme☯ talk 12:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, when you're ready to move it into article space using the move link in the dropdown menu, before you do that, edit out the code that says:

{{User sandbox}}

<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->

Then it'll look like an ordinary article. After you move it into mainspace, copy that wikiproject code from above and use it to start the article talk page, and that will be that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


Archiving

@Cobi: That makes two of us. I just want to be able to start indexing my dated archives for easy look-up. Not sure if it's something that can be auto-indexed, or if it's a manual task. I definitely want auto-archiving. I got the info from Archive#Archive_indexing. Also, Sven_Manguard has an archiving system that I really like, but his is manual. Atsme☯ talk 17:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, I see (I didn't realize someone had posted that on WP:Archive). That only works if User:ClueBot III is the one doing the archiving, or at least, if ClueBot III is set to archive your page. For instructions on how to set up ClueBot III to archive, please see it's userpage. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 22:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

blanking sandbox

The trouble is that now the sandbox has a redirect to the article. You can tell this because it says in tiny letters at the top left that you were redirected from wherever. If you click on that little link it'll take you to the redirect page, which is your actual sandbox, and then you can blank that. If that's too hard to follow I can do it for you.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Funny - I was just typing you a note about that little problem. Please fix it? Atsme☯ talk 22:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Done: User:Atsme/sandbox. But to see what I'm talking about, try this: Mainstream Christianity. If you click there you get redirected to Christianity, but the difference is that if you land on a page via a redirect this text appears under the title: (Redirected from Mainstream Christianity) with the name of the redirect being a link to the actual redirect page, which is here in this case. Then you can edit that page, e.g. to make it redirect somewhere else or, as in your case, blank it, or whatever you need to do.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, wow. Ok, but how did you "blank" the page without it blanking the main article? Atsme☯ talk 22:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I typed User:Atsme/sandbox into the search field. That redirected me to the actual article, but with the little redirect note at the top. I clicked on that and it took me to your actual sandbox, which showed me this (that's the old version before I blanked it), then hit edit and erased everything. Clear as mud? If you want to experiment, you can make another sandbox page and redirect it to your original sandbox page by typing #REDIRECT [[User:Atsme/sandbox]] in it and then trying to get back to the redirect page to blank it. Or maybe that's not interesting, I don't know.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand edit and erase, if that's any consolation. Ha! So how did the article already receive a "C" rating? That's mighty fast. Atsme☯ talk 22:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Sirdog

{ {hat | checkY  Passed Atsme 💬 📧 11:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)}}

Notability in a nutshell

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large outlets are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller ones can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations, nor should they be used to provide blanket permissions for all articles about a certain subject.
See WP:NMEDIA - while the material is used for media notability, the message covers a much broader area for reviewers to consider, and why I made it the masthead.



Welcome New Trainee!

Instructions: Sirdog, below is a quote from the lead at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School that I want you to consider:

If you are looking to contribute to Wikipedia but do not intend to remain active on New Page Review, then this program is probably not for you.

Users who are less experienced, but who would still like to help maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, might like to consider Patrolling Vandalism instead – an essential function that requires less knowledge of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, although such knowledge is highly recommended. For training on Counter vandalism, see WP:CVUA.

If you still wish to proceed with training, your first exercise is to review the video @ Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, and the NPP Tutorial. Become familiar with the flowcharts and curation tool as some of that information will come into play during the Q&A session. If you have any questions after you've read the tutorial and have a basic understanding of the page curation tool, please ping me from your session page.

Part of the training will involve your participation in a few live NPP reviews that I will assign. You are also expected to read and learn the relative WP policies and guidelines as presented in the 5 subsections below. You will provide a summary, in your own words, of what you've learned including what you consider to be the most important aspects of each. You will complete one section at a time, in the order presented, and ping me after you complete each part in order to, if deemed necessary, discuss your responses before proceeding to the next part. Please be mindful of the formatting.

Your reactions and behavior are also part of the exam. Keep in mind that WP has no deadlines, so you may work at a comfortable pace.

It may seem overwhelming at first but in comparison to the work we do at NPP, this training exercise is a drop in the bucket. NPP is not a cakewalk and has been referred to as a step toward becoming an administrator. Don't hesitate to ask questions - and remember, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Good luck!! Atsme 💬 📧 13:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Notability (Pt. 1)

Notability is a litmus test applied to topics to ascertain if it should have it's own article on Wikipedia. As a rule, such topics must have reliable and independent sources report on it. This is necessary to avoid the addition of information haphazardly to the encyclopedia. Notability is determined if an article meets an SNG for a given sub-set of topics, or the GNG for all other topics, and it does not fall under that which Wikipedia is not (e.g a dictionary, a soapbox for promotion, a directory, a blog, etc).

An important distinction is that not all topics that meet notability will have their own articles, but all topics that meet notability technically qualify for their own article. The community may decide that a topic is better served, even if notable, as merged into another article - among other options.

  • checkY – Just an FYI - my course introduces the critical thinking side of WP:GNG and WP:PAG, which further explains the reason for the banner at the top of this page. We have guidelines, and we have policies – we also have exceptions; thus WP:IAR. It will not be easy to ignore core content policies unless deductive reasoning along with good common sense tells us a topic is indeed notable for obvious reasons that go beyond the multiple RS criteria, although there are no guarantees it will survive AfD; however, for the sake of the project, it is worth considering and presenting a sound deductive reasoning argument. While the inclusion of geographic locations, educational institutions and species are automatic inclusions, as are documented historic events that are verifiable, we must also consider a person or event that was either a "first" and/or represents a milestone that resonates historically but may have taken place before we had the luxury of world-wide media or the internet. You will probably find such occurrences relative to women in history more often than any other, and also women in countries today where such opportunities and/or recognition have been suppressed. Atsme 💬 📧 11:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The GNG is the written guideline that lays out the things to look for explicitly when evaluating notability. As written, a topic is presumed to be suitable for it's own article if it has significant coverage in sources that are reliable and the sources are independent from the subject.

Presumed means there is an assumption an article may be suitable, but it is not a promise. Consensus may be reached that the topic violates WP:NOT or that another action aside from a standalone article is most appropriate. Significant coverage means that the topic is addressed explicitly and in some level of detail. Original research should not be necessary to extract meaning from sources. This can get nuanced, however. This means a source should not superficially mention a topic, but nor does the source need to make the topic the main course to classify as "significant". Reliability means the source needs oversight regarding the information published so that Wikipedians can evaluate such notability verifiably. If the sources themselves are not reliable, then it is borderline impossible to evaluate notability. Sources should always be secondary - meaning a source that is analyzing or assessing a primary source (such as the topic in question being evaluated for notability). There is no brightline number of sources, as they vary in their quality and depth, but as a general rule there should be multiple. Independent excludes from consideration any source that is produced or closely affiliated to the topic. For example, press releases requested by the Final Fantasy XIV team would not be eligible as a source proving notability.

  • checkY Well stated.

As time has gone on the community has come to a consensus as to what classifies as "notable" within particular topic areas such as film, academia, books, etc. The accepted guidelines are numerous, and links to them can be found at WP:NOTABILITY. Generally speaking, SNGs define verifiable criteria which has historically shown that notability-establishing sourcing exists. Thus, topics which pass SNG scrutiny more often then not merit an article. That does not mean an article passing SNG cannot be deleted or merged should an exception to the trend exist.

SNGs, by their specific nature, also allow for granting greater assistance to editors - such as giving spelled out examples of sources and coverage (e.g for books, there is a footnote that explicitly goes over types of sites and sources which are and aren't good for meeting the "non-trivial" phrasing of criterion 1) to assist in determining notability. Similarly, the SNGs may assist in clarifying certain things that may intuitively seem notable but actually aren't (e.g the mere fact an individual is in an elected office does not within of itself mean they are notable; that typical applies at a state/province level or higher alongside other qualifiers).

  • checkY (keeping what I stated above in mind).

As Wikipedia has increased in size, scope, and international reach organizations have become extremely interested in having both a) articles about them on Wikipedia and b) having such articles speak of them favorably. This is very problematic, as Wikipedia is not a promotional platform and it strongly discourages (and in certain cases prohibits) those with a conflict of interest from editing such topics. As such, the SNG on organizations and companies was developed to iron down such articles in Wikipedia's policies. It is split, generally, into the primary and alternative criteria. For an organization to be classified as notable it needs to meet the primary or alternate criteria or meet GNG on it's own.

The primary criteria is basically the GNG but with various safeguards and explanations so as to combat the issues mentioned above. Particularly, it emphasizes higher scrutiny on sources to avoid gaming. Thus, by it's nature, it lists various caveats. One such example is that significant sources may cover an organization due to them possibly participating in illegal conduct. Because the conduct of the organization - and not the organization itself - is the topic, such sources are generally not permitted to be used as establishing notability.

The alternative criteria go over various other scenarios that apply to specific types of organizations, such as both commercial and non-commercial organizations, schools, and the like. For example, in regards to religious organizations, just because a building that such an organization congregates in may be notable doesn't mean the organization is notable.

  • checkY Well-stated!
  • Relative to your work as a NPP reviewer, what initial steps would you take upon arriving at an article to be reviewed?

My initial steps would be something to the effect of:

  1. Is the article in English?
  2. Does the article have copyright violations?
  3. Does it fall under G1, G2, G3, G10, G11, or any other criterion for speedy deletion?
  4. Does the topic of the article fall under SNG or GNG?
    1. If GNG, does sourcing meet it?
      1. If sourcing doesn't meet it (or sourcing doesn't exist), can I find sourcing that does?
    2. If SNG, does it fall under any of the exclusionary guidelines of the particular SNG (e.g local elected office per above section)?
    3. If SNG and not excluded, does it meet SNG?
      1. If sourcing doesn't meet it (or sourcing doesn't exist), can I find sourcing that does?
@Atsme: I think I'm interpreting your instructions right in that you want me to do all of part 1, then ping for review, then all of part 2, and so on. My apologies if I went ahead on accident. I've also watched the video on page curation and read the NPP tutorial page. 😊 —Sirdog (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Sirdog – you interpreted correctly. You may continue to Pt 2 while I evaluate your responses (hopefully) sometime today. Atsme 💬 📧 11:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and guidelines (Pt. 2)

This is a guideline I'm quite familiar with as a vandalism fighter. It is the codified belief that all editors should assume that all other editors, regardless of perceived experience or hostility, are trying to in some way improve the encyclopedia (even if actions taken may be damaging in the short-term) unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. This does not preclude the ability to give criticism, however, as it is possible to criticize the actions of an editor without presuming their motives are malicious. It is also possible that editors may genuinely be trying to help but they lack the knowledge or know-how to do so within Wikipedia's current framework. Care should be taken when citing this guideline, as the citation of it within the wrong context may within of itself be a negative assumption.

  • checkY Nicely put. Occam & Hanlon were pretty smart cookies.

Wikipedia is widely used, with many search engines indexing it's results to dynamically display what Wikipedia says to a user without them even having to visit the site. Because this can have a very real and dramatic effect on people if covered by Wikipedia, WP:BLP is an extremely strict set of policies that go over how editors are required to cover an individual who is currently alive. Sourcing needs to be immaculate, the tone should be written with care and be the pinnacle of neutrality, any statement that most likely will be or has been challenged must be removed immediately if unsourced, any criticism or praise given to a subject must be balanced as is appropriate and reported by sources, primary sources are a big no-no for proving identifiable qualities, and so on. The policy is a bit vast, but I believe those were the really big sticking points.

  • checkY
 Question: As I mentioned, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, the policy makes quite a big deal about not using primary sources to verify information such as DoB and stuff. The policy doesn't go on to explain why, though. Would it be because that would be in breach of WP:BLPPRIVACY? This makes me feel a bit bad as back in March I told another user that linking to a marriage certificate would sufficiently prove marriage. Was that a violation of BLPPRIMARY?
  •  Possibly –accumulative experiences as a WP editor and member of WP:VRT have taught me that it's best to find RS that have published the dates, typically obits, and possibly verifiable images of grave markers (usually people of historic significance). If the person is deceased, it's not a BLP issue. I'm of the mind some editors dispute dates as their specialty, but of course, we AGF. I have also experienced a sitch that, while widely published, there were conflicting birth dates. The BLP wrote to WMF, and WMF advised VRT to handle it. I initiated the first email correspondence with the BLP, and had them submit documented proof. Of course, only members of VRT are privy to the correspondence, so all I could share was the ticket# for verification of the correct birth date – problem solved. Atsme 💬 📧 13:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The goal of Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia which presents information neutrally and in a formal tone. A conflict of interest is when an editor participates in topics on Wikipedia that they are closely related to. This tends to undermine the ability for an editor to write formally or neutrally, as doing so about topics closely related may cause the editor to write in a favorable (or unfavorable) manner when they need to be remaining neutral.

A COI can take, generally, 2 forms. The first form is when an editor is just closely related; the topic may be family member, a client of theirs, or a business they run or work for. The second form is when an editor is being monetarily compensated by an entity to perform edits on Wikipedia. Many businesses may pay contractors, or their own employees, to edit their relevant Wikipedia article. If the article doesn't yet exist, the individual may be paid to create it. This historically has caused issues on Wikipedia as the goals of the employer, and thus employee, tend to be in direct conflict with Wikipedia's.

For the 2nd form, the terms of service as set forth by the Wikimedia Foundation requires that such users disclose the following: what entity is paying them, who the client of the payment is, and any other affiliation that may be appropriate to the topic. For example, a Google employee paid to edit the relevant article would state that they are paid by Google and that the payment is so that they edit that article. Failure to do is classified as undisclosed paid editing which may result in sanctions from an administrator if it persists.

Any level of a COI should be disclosed, however, the difference is that for paid editing the Wikimedia Foundation mandates the disclosure.

  • checkY In cases of biographies & BLP, an editor considered a friend of the subject does not create a direct COI, but it may introduce bias or even WP:OR, inadvertent or otherwise. If such is the case, it's always best if the friend invites uninvolved editors to oversee their contributions, and help contribute to the article. It is not necessary to publicly disclose those situations because it could be considered a form of OUTING. Atsme 💬 📧 13:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 Question: Does policy demand the disclosure of a none UPE COI? As in, can it result in sanctions if not performed willfully? The COI page really leans on you should but avoids phrasing it as a requirement aside from paid editing.
  • WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE clearly states: If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must declare who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. It further states that you "must ensure everyone with whom you interact is aware of your paid status." The definition of must = obligation = morally or legally bound. If a UPE COI is not disclosed, and others learn of it or suspect it, the UPE and their work will be subjected to close scrutiny because of the distrust they created by not disclosing, and while each situation is different, there are risks of being blocked or site-banned and having their work deleted. It's always best to let WP:COICOIN handle those situations.
Hopefully, my explanation above your question - In cases of biographies & BLP... has brought some clarity relative to COIs in general. I used "friend" in my example, but it applies to any close relationship, be it family, friend or foe. The correct procedure is to invite other editors to oversee the editing. If I haven't addressed your specific concern, don't hesitate to ask by pinging me in your question. Atsme 💬 📧 10:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyright refers to the owner of a creative work owning the exclusive right to copy and distribute said work. On Wikipedia, all edits are licensed under CC BY-SA and the GFDL, which is performed automatically after any edit is published per the relevant notice on the edit (or confirm edit) screen.

Where things get complicated (to put it lightly) is when Wikipedia wishes to use the creative work of others for the purpose of building the encyclopedia. To do so the creative work must be within the public domain, the relevant copyright has to be explicitly disowned, the copyright has to be under a compatible license, or explicit permission from the owner of the copyright must be obtained. It is also possible to use such works without permission, but under very specific circumstances (such as fair use).

If copyrighted material is hosted on Wikipedia without permission or legal justification it constitutes a copyright violation, which is a big non-no for many reasons - not least of which is the legal liability for Wikipedia. It is imperative that such material be removed from Wikipedia immediately and in most cases it is appropriate for an administrator to perform revision deletion. While it is generally not easy to be blocked on Wikipedia, repeatedly posting copyrighted material is one such way.

To re-distribute text on Wikipedia it requires credit be given to the authors in one 3 ways: a link to the Wikipedia page, a link to a stable online copy which is freely accessible and gives credit to an equivalent degree as a history page, or a list of all authors is provided. When it comes to any amount of media, how to handle giving appropriate credit would be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the copyright of that media.

Linking to another website that possesses a copyrighted work does not constitute a copyright violation, however, websites that are violating copyright themselves should not be linked to as that also has similar legal liabilities. Wikipedians also need to take into account copyright law from nations that aren't the United States.

  • checkY The following wikilinked discussions are for you to read because copyvio can be complicated, and when we're reviewing, being only human leaves us open to the occasional mistake as my own experiences demonstrate (and I am very well versed in copyvio, but not an attorney, although I used to keep one on retainer):
  1. User talk:Justlettersandnumbers#Not a copyvio
  2. User talk:Justlettersandnumbers#Evaluation
  3. User talk:Justlettersandnumbers#I flat-out missed it

This is fairly straightforward: a hoax is an attempt to deceive in audience into believing that something false is real. This has occasionally been done on Wikipedia, and gone undetected for years, as a means of demonstrating that Wikipedia is falsifiable. This is an inevitable consequence of Wikipedia being a website that anyone can edit and, as of today, it isn't something that can be prevented with certainty. There is no need to prove this, and it only leads to read world consequences - in extreme cases, it could be fatal. Editors - NPR's especially - need to be cognizant of if something is a hoax and, if it is believed or verified to be, to mark it as such and/or mark it for speedy deletion.

The above said, there is a fundamental difference between an article written as a hoax and an article describing a hoax for encyclopedic value. The latter is acceptable; the former is not.

  • checkY Nice!

Also pretty straightforward: an attack page is a page on Wikipedia, regardless of namespace, wherein it's sole purpose is to threaten, demean, or disparage the subject. Such pages are eligible for speedy deletion under G10 and should be marked as such if found, blanked as a courtesy, and offending editor(s) warned. If the subject is notable, and the page is in article space, then an editor should revert the page to the last neutral version. If such a version does not exist, the page should be deleted by an administrator outright, and a stub made to replace it. This is especially urgent if the subject is a BLP. In a situation where content from an article is split to a separate one for whatever reason, that page would generally not be classified as an attack page, even if a majority of the content reflects negatively upon the subject. All BLP requirements would still apply, though, if applicable.

  • checkY (sidebar note: my grammar-spell checker underlines problems in red, and has consistently noted its being spelled it's - we all do it, and I just wanted to make you aware because of its consistency. If you notice similar in my texts, please don't hesitate to advise. ^_^) Atsme 💬 📧 13:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Atsme: I've completed part 2! I hope all is well! 😁 —Sirdog (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Passed Pt. 2 Atsme 💬 📧 13:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Communications (Pt. 3)

This section is relative to Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Related further reading

  • Discussions with creators of new pages

It has been demonstrated that a majority of new content on the English Wikipedia is developed by new users. In contrast, there are a lot of policies surrounding content editing (from notability, to the manual of style, to picking reliable sources, and so on). Not to mention more universally applicable setbacks, such as computer literacy.

New page reviewers are in a unique position where they will communicate with such editors with high frequency. It's imperative for reviewers to be kind. If an article is good to go, they should send a message of support and thanks for the editor's time. If an article has issues, or necessitates deletion or removal from article space, the reviewer should go over the errors, give feedback on how to improve (usually in the form of directing them to the relevant policies), and above all else encourage them to continue.

A shining example of such behavior could be found in Oshwah (within reason; his capacity for kindness and AGF is arguably inhuman, lol).

  • Automated notifications and when to manually notify/discuss

Wikipedia is big. As time has gone on, and as the membership has waxed and waned, it was found to be beneficial to create templates for generic notifications of various things. The ones I am most familiar with are the vandalism warning templates used in WP:RCP (which I remember with fondness substituting by hand until I learned that Twinkle and RedWarn existed). Generally, they are useful for repetitious tasks or for tasks wherein policy mandates a notification (such as WP:ANI or making sure all leveled warnings are issued for WP:AIV).

However, in most cases - and especially in NPP - it is preferred to give non-templated responses when possible. New users aren't stupid; they can tell if a message is coming from someone trying to help or if it is a "corporatized" generic response. They will be far more likely to become inflamed, or simply leave outright, in the latter scenario. Such notifications can also be long-winded and intimidating (such as the copyright warnings).

Regular users are even less stupid, and it is against best practice to give them templates at all unless mandated by a process or policy.

  • checkY I am quite impressed with your textual articulation, your critical thinking skills and evaluative approach to situations, and your overall knowledge and capacity to understand difficult situations and how best to handle them. IOW, you have all the ingredients that comprise an administrator cocktail. Atsme 💬 📧 13:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Tone, clarity, and knowledge in discussions

When speaking with new users (or with anyone, really, as most article creators are probably invested in said article) it is important to speak in a friendly, welcoming tone so as to avoid coming off as WP:BITEy or impersonal, otherwise, the editor may be encouraged to abandon the article or the project. Information should be distilled clearly. It is trivially easy for an experienced Wikipedian to drown a newcomer is jargon, shortcuts, and complicated policies which can be extremely overwhelming. Using simple language in favor of complex language, when appropriate, to get across an idea is also ideal - not all editors are fluent or native in English, and these editors are not in any way less valid than others so long as there is not a competence issue. Being knowledgeable in the relevant policy and processes is paramount; misinterpretation or a complete lack of understanding can result in a waste of administrator time (e.g improper CSD), cause a negative experience for the creator that is unnecessary (e.g rejecting an article on false pretenses when in reality it is acceptable, or vice versa), waste community time (e.g improper AfD), among other poor results.

  • checkY Well said!
  • Wikilove/positive comments

When communicating with other editors, and especially newcomers, it is very tempting to only focus on the bad. However, this can lead to the feeling that the only result of a conversation will be poor and that the positive contributions of an editor outside of whatever the current topic of the day is aren't relevant. This would be incorrect, as any constructive edit made to the encyclopedia is worthy of praise, because it is the work of the volunteers that have made Wikipedia what it is today. As such, it is important to find ways to compliment and thank fellow editors for their positive contributions from time to time, rather than just making corrections or criticisms. These go a long way towards creating a positive rapport, respect, and trust between editors.

WikiLove is an informal yet widely accepted[citation needed] community doctrine to aggressively be nice with one another and wholesomely thank other editors for a wide array of things. Not least of which being an editor's very existence on the project. This can be accomplished by a simple talk page message all the way to long lists of templates dedicated to this purpose.

Warning templates are a specific type of notification meant to advise an editor that a particular behavior is undesirable and that it needs to stop and/or be corrected. They are most commonly used in anti-vandalism to systematically warn vandalizers against their behavior. After a level 4 warning (or 4im) is issued and ignored, an administrator will block on sight or in response to a report to WP:AIV. That said, there are warning templates for an extremely wide-array of scenarios.

In the case of NPP, relevant warnings to issue may include (but aren't limited to): warning editors about copyvio, advising page creator that a page is up for CSD/PROD/XfD, warning editor for creating an attack page, warning an editor about a potential COI, warning an editor about UPE, advising editors tagging articles to avoid doing so when done improperly, warning editors about BLP violations, and so on. These warnings are important so that, in the event an administrator becomes involved, it can be demonstrated that an editor was advised to avoid X and continued to do so anyway. That said, issuing such warnings with templates is not wholly necessary (barring exemptions), and NPP's should evaluate what is most appropriate based on the circumstances.

@Atsme: Part 3 under my belt! —Sirdog (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I just realized I've been kinda cold about this without meaning to, but if anybody gets real life being a kicker, it would be me right now. My availability is quite high and I always have other hobbies and tasks I can do in the meantime, so the response time certainly isn't an inconvenience at all. I also see you are doing 3 students simultaneously?! I respect your tenacity in doing so! Me being able to knock this out so fast (hopefully that doesn't come back to bite me 😅) is due to us getting properly started right at the beginning of a "weekend" for me. I look forward to your feedback! —Sirdog (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Passed Pt. 3 – Feedback provided. I don't think you've been cold at all, and I do appreciate and enjoy reading your comments, as well as those by other trainees who are taking my course now or in the past. Atsme 💬 📧 13:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Deletion (Pt. 4)

Articles for deletion is a venue where editors can formally discuss whether or not an article should remain on Wikipedia or if another course of action would be appropriate (e.g merging, redirecting, userfying, draftifying, etc). AfD, like most processes on Wikipedia, is not a vote. It is standard practice to preface a comment with Support or some other indicator of the desired result, but this should be followed with an argument. Arguments that discuss how an article meets or fails a particular policy take precedence over arguments that do not. AfDs discussions remain listed for 7 full days before being evaluated by an uninvolved administrator. Said administrator will evaluate the consensus reached and close the discussion with such evaluation being provided. Non-administrators may also do this, but it comes with various caveats.

WP:BEFORE is a section of the AfD policy which goes over various things editors should check for prior to submitting an article to AfD. These have been developed so as to minimize the number of articles submitted to AfD that are there improperly, or where the outcome is so glaringly obvious that the AfD process is not a productive use of editor time.

First, the editor should be informed regarding deletion policy so they know what the valid grounds for deletion are and what alternatives exist. They should then also inform themselves regarding the content policies that are primarily used in deletion debates: notability (both GNG and SNG), verifiability, reliable sourcing, and WP:NOT.

Second, the editor should perform a myriad of checks to ensure that AfD is necessary and not another process. Is CSD/PROD more appropriate? Has the article been nominated before and thus the concerns currently held have already been addressed? Is the article's current state due to vandalism/disruption which simple reversion will immediately correct? Has enough time passed for renomination (if applicable)? Etcetera, etcetera.

Third, the editor should entertain the idea of improving the article and salvaging it - if reasonable and applicable - rather than simply sending it to the chopping block. Or, if a fix is well supported by policy or is otherwise obvious, perhaps the editor can simply do so themselves per WP:BOLD rather than forcing a consensus be established (e.g if it is clear the topic itself isn't notable, merging it into another article may be a solution the editor takes unilaterally).

Finally, if the primary concern is sourcing, can the editor find that sourcing themselves? The minimum check expected prior to an AfD is a regular Google search, a Google books search, a Google news search, and a Google scholar search (if the topic relates to academia).

Proposed deletion is a process editors can utilize to mark an article that they believe is not in compliance with a relevant policy, but also does not meet CSD criteria, for deletion. This is designed for articles where there is a low chance a consensus will be needed to ascertain what should happen to it; ergo, it won't be controversial.

Once the template is placed, if any editor whatsoever objects (including the article creator), the process is aborted and may not be restarted. The reason for objection is immaterial, even if in bad faith, with 2 exceptions: a) the removal of the template (a typical sign of objection) is clearly not an attempt to object (e.g vandalism), or b) if the removal is performed by a banned user or a sockpuppet. If the editor that placed the PROD still believes deletion is warranted despite an objector's rationale, the process would need to escalate to AfD. If the PROD template remains on the page for 7 days uncontested an administrator will delete the page.

WP:BLPPROD is a process to delete an article about a living person that has no sources whatsoever in any form (e.g external links, inline citation, further reading, etc) that support any statement made within the article. This is not used for any other purpose; such as determining notability or correcting any violation of a WP:BLP guideline. In order for the tag to be removed, at least one reliable source must be added to support some statement made within the article. If the tag is removed with no sources added, it may be returned with the expiration date not being affected. If there is contention as to the reliability of a newly provided source, the article should be directed to AfD. If the nominator believes the article still warrants deletion for any other reason, then a relevant deletion process should be utilized.

The timeline to remove the tag is the same as PROD; after 7 days an administrator will delete the article if the requirements for the tag's removal are not met. In both processes, administrators are just like any other editor (this is always the case, but is sometimes forgettable). They may decide to object to a PROD or provide a source for BLPPROD rather than delete.

  • checkY I've often wondered if we might not save time by simply tagging it as an AfD. Far too many admins are overly-cautious or hesitant to act on A7s and Gs. ??? Atsme 💬 📧 10:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 Question: If an article is PRODed and the 7 days expire, but an administrator has yet to perform deletion (this example presumes the PROD is procedurally sound), are objections made after the expiry still capable of halting deletion?
Yes, if the reason satisfies the issue that caused the PROD. Atsme 💬 📧 10:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 Question: As I was studying the relevant page I learned that WP:PRODPATROL is a thing. An interesting maintenance task that I'm slightly interested in, but I digress. As I randomly checked an article in the category for proposed deletion I found Morgan Giraudet. I do believe that the PROD reason is justifiable, however, this appears to be a WP:BLP and there are no references. Checking the page history shows references used to exist, but I would evaluate all of them were not reliable. So, we have a page on PROD that may qualify for BLPPROD. What would be the correct procedure here? Replace the original PROD with BLPPROD? Add BLPPROD ontop of the originating PROD? Wait out the current PROD and, if it's objected, then issue BLPPROD? Some other action? Granted, I have not looked myself to see if notability establishing sources exist - this question is mostly procedural.
I added a comment on the PROD that there is a duplicate in Draft:Morgan_Giraudet - maybe that will speed things up, but then, refer to my tick comment above. Atsme 💬 📧 10:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Soft deletion is a form of procedural deletion where anyone may request the page be undeleted indiscriminately at WP:REFUND. This is generally used when a deletion discussion has very little participation. The closing administrator is directed to make the fact the deletion is soft clear. A possible alternative to soft deletion is a blank and redirection if no one suggests that deletion is appropriate per established community consensus.

 Question: I see that WP:SOFTDELETE is underneath the section "No quorum" of the deletion procedures. In this section at the top it states If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD... Generally, this will result in soft deletion. In the section where the shortcut leads it only states If a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. So, is the only qualifier for an administrator to perform soft-deletion that the participation be minimal? Or does a past PROD that was cancelled, or any editor opposing deletion, preclude that as an option?
It's anyone's guess. If it's not a blatantly obvious AfD, it's subjective which leaves us at the mercy of whatever admin is on duty. That is one of several reasons editors should closely scrutinize admin candidates at RfA. Atsme 💬 📧 10:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The criteria for speedy deletion refer to a very regimented set of criterion where administrators have consensus to bypass PROD or XfD and simply delete a page unilaterally. Out of all of the deletion processes, this is the fastest (relevant to how fast an administrator sees the CSD tag). The process is started by an editor wishing to delete something placing the relevant template on the page, along with notifying the page creator and any major contributors.

There are criteria for general deletion (GX), which apply to all pages; article (AX), which only applies to articles; redirects (RX), which only apply to redirect pages; files (FX), which only apply to files; categories (CX), which only apply to categories; user pages (UX), which apply to user pages; and portals (PX), which apply to pages that act as a "main page" for a broad subjects. I know it was kinda redundant for me to list them out like this; I mainly did it to ingrain the categories internally.

I have bolded "very regimented" because it is an unfortunately common practice for editors, when evaluating to CSD something, to stretch the criterion when it otherwise does not apply. Some examples include:

  1. G1 - Patent nonsense means the article is truly not able to be parsed. If it is possible to ascertain any kind of meaning, even if the meaning is very clearly absurd, the fact meaning exists at all disqualifies G1.
  2. G4 - Any page deleted under PROD or CSD does not qualify for G4, hard stop. Only a consensus-based discussion that resulted in deletion, which is undeleted without relevant consensus or process, qualifies.
  3. G11 - This refers to pages that are unsalvageably promotional; not merely articles that have promotional language within them. Common signs G11 may apply include: usage of first person, contact information for various people, only has promotional language, and in really easy cases: the author explicitly states that no one else should edit it.
  4. G12 - This only applies if there is unequivocal copyright violations on the page, and no version of the page within page history is clean of copyvio, and it is not possible to remove the copyvio and have a salvageable article.
  5. A1 - "No context" means it isn't possible to ascertain what the topic of the article even is from the given material. If the topic is declared in the article, or it is possible to ascertain it based on the given information, A1 does not apply.
  6. A7 - This criterion refers to an article about a real person, individual animals, organizations, content on the web, or organized events wherein nothing in the article credibly indicates the subject is important or significant. Credible means that a claim as evaluated by a rational person may make sense intuitively; it does NOT mean that the claim meets the standards of WP:RS or WP:VERIFY. I've provided personally crafted examples below. For the purpose of demonstration, all sentences below are functionally the only sentence in a hypothetical article that made any claim of importance. In the wild, if any sentence in an article has a credible claim to significance - even if other claims aren't credible - A7 is still not applicable.
    1. John Doe is able to do the fastest push-ups on the planet - not eligible for A7
    2. Coca-Cola makes the best cookies in the United States - not eligible for A7
    3. John Doe was the first human being to visit Jupiter - eligible for A7
    4. Jane Doe successfully created a perpetual motion machine - eligible for A7
    5. 'The End of an Era', a book by Jane Doe in 2022, is the first book ever published - not eligible; books do not fall under A7
  7. A10 - This criterion only applies if all of the following are true: the article is an unequivocal duplicate of another article on the project; the duplicated version does not improve upon, expand upon, or add details that aren't present in the original; and the title of the article is not a good redirect target. The last point is really important, as deletion is obviously inappropriate if the article should remain so it can be a redirect.

The creator of a page is prohibited from removing a CSD template unless it falls under G6, G7, G8, G13, G14, or U1. They can instead contest the deletion on the article talk page which will be taken into account once an administrator reviews it. If an uninvolved editor removes the template, the deletion is classified as contested, and another deletion process should be selected (with potential common-sense exceptions being G9, G12, and U1).

 Question: Under criterion U5 it states where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages, except for plausible drafts and pages adhering to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?. Am I correct in assuming that even if a page's content falls under U5, if the owner has non-insubstantial edits outside of userspace, that U5 is not applicable?
The primary purpose of U5 is to discourage/eliminate non-notable autobiographies, improper use of UPs by advocacies, and the like. Editors who are here to help build the encyclopedia are given more leniency. For example, I've taken advantage of my user subpages to host NPP training, and my actual UP hosts some of my photographs, barnstars, userboxes, etc. but I'm obviously here to help build (and fix what's broke). What we don't want is for, say a photog, to use the space to showcase their work, and obviously fit the description of WP:NOTHERE. Atsme 💬 📧 10:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Atsme Part 4 completed! I've also made some replies from your feedback above. Could I point your attention to the question about COI when you get the time? Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 Passed Pt. 4 Atsme 💬 📧 10:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing Procedures (Pt. 5)

Wikipedia has a lot of templates. One kind of template are improvement tags. These can be assigned to an article to alert readers (and thus, editors) of various problems that may exist with the article. This can be about copy-editing, copyright violations (both real and suspected), plot summaries being too long, an article being written like an advertisement, and many more.

There has been contention in the community as to whether or not these templates are useful, as it would be preferred if the editor WP:BOLDly corrected whatever the errors. However, the general consensus at present is that - presuming an editor has already decided to not fix the problem - it's better to tag it than do nothing. As editors are volunteers it is their free choice as to whether or not to fix a problem. It's also possible the problem requires knowledge or expertise, both in Wikipedia policy or topic knowledge, which the editor lacks (CCI is a common example of requiring basically both).

Any editor without a COI to the article may remove any tag if they cannot find the error that is described. However, unless it was a glaringly obvious tag (e.g lack of categorization), a talk page note is encouraged anytime that this is done.

It is possible to overtag an article, which is problematic within itself, as it may discourage editors or readers from doing anything. This is because it gives off the perception the article is irredeemable. At most only 3 tags should be on an article at once, and these should be reserved for the most severe problems, even if other problems exist. The less severe problems can come later; there isn't a deadline.

When tagging, the most specific tag should be selected for a given problem. The template {{cleanup}} is nice and all, but it is very vague and puts the onus on future editors to find errors when they have technically already been seen. Does the article need sections? Is the view not balanced? Are there not enough citations? Etcetera, etcetera.

Categorization is a function on Wikipedia wherein if readers know a defining characteristic of multiple topics and want to find related articles, they can. All articles on Wikipedia should have a minimum of a single category and this category should be the most specific branch of category available. For example, when categorizing Abraham Lincoln, using Category:19th-century American politicians is not as ideal as using Category:19th-century presidents of the United States (though in this case the actual article has both). Any category assigned to an article should be verifiable, remain neutral, and be a defining characteristic of the subject. For example, randomly categorizing someone with Category:Leaders of the Ku Klux Klan without reliable sources commonly associating the topic with such a category is defamatory.

Categorization is physically performed by adding [[Category:CATEGORY_NAME_HERE]] to the bottom of an article page, though nowadays, people mainly use HotCat.

A stub is classified as an article that has some useful information but lacks coverage expected from a typical encyclopedia. Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting is a project designed to organize stubs into specific stub-categories. This is done so as to increase the likelihood of editors finding stubs that may interest them and expanding upon them, rather than letting the article sit in the void and wither away. Many articles moved to mainspace by new users have a high probability of being stubs to start off with, and so NPR's are in a particularly good position to perform this function; knocking out 2 birds with 1 stone.

  • A: Hmm. Kneejerk reaction would be to perform a variety of checks (e.g violation of WP:NOT, was the page blanked in vandalism, was the page recently deleted and being undeleted out of process, has the article had enough time to breath yet, does criterion A1/A3 apply, etc). Presuming none of those checks bore fruit, I guess it would depend if the page creator managed to provide 2 or more GNG/SNG compliant sources to prove the topic's notability. Specifically, to the point where merging the 2 sentences into a more relevant article wouldn't be appropriate. If they managed it, try to find both a regular and stub category to match it, encourage creator to keep going (and perhaps even try to expand it a bit myself), then mark patrolled. If not, perform a courtesy check using the various Google engines to see if I can get any - if I can't, attempt a merge/redirect or AfD/PROD.
  • checkY It's probably subjective, but I would be inclined to draftify, and let the article creator find the citations and expand the article they created, or ask for help if they don't know how. We can notify them of what needs to be done on their TP after sending the article to draft. As an NPP reviewer, you would have that right, but make sure you have sufficient justification to do so. From my perspective, a 2-sentence stub doesn't even qualify as a stub - it's barely a definition. Also, how many sources can you cite to 2 sentences in order to pass GNG requirements? (rhetorical questions) Atsme 💬 📧 00:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Separately from my answer, I just want to in advance ask for 2 or 3 rounds of articles to review instead of one, if that's alright. I'm a learning by doing kind of person, so being able to get your 1-on-1 evaluation of 10-15 reviews would be very helpful! —Sirdog (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Atsme, part 5 is in the bag! —Sirdog (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

 Passed Pt. 5 - Go ahead and answer the stub question above. I will provide the articles for you to review tomorrow AM. Atsme 💬 📧 01:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

NPP Exercise

I will list/have listed 5 articles for you to review. Below each one, provide a succinct summary of your review beginning with (a) what you looked for first, (b) what issues you found, if any, (c) what actions you would have taken/did take, and (d) why you chose that particular action. Feel free to copy edit and/or find & cite sources if needed.

1. Amanda Cortinas

State of Article at Review: [1]

  1. Article is in English.
  2. G1, G2, G3, G10, and G11 do not apply.
  3. Article is not nearly blank.
  4. I can tell what the topic is.
  5. Earwig detects potential copyvio from 2nd line of article at source A and B. However, our article was created with the text in 2008 whereas source A was made in 2015. I can't tell when source B was created, so while it is possible Wikipedia took it from there, the odds are low enough to where I would not tag for copyvio or rev-del.
  6. Claim of importance is that they are an actor.
  7. Subject is BLP.
  8. Absolutely nothing comes up when searching for BLP's name aside from a source that does not demonstrate significant coverage (also probably not reliable, but I didn't bother to dig to much deeper after diqualifying sigcov).
  9. Subject does not meet WP:NACTOR.
  10. A PROD was already attempted and contested, thus, AfD would be appropriate.
  11. As AfD already exists, I would vote Delete. The article One Life to Live doesn't really mention character's by name unless to talk about the show in a meta way, with Amanda nor Adriana mentioned once throughout. Nothing in the article up for deletion gives reason to assume there is sufficient significance with the character to warrant a merge. My original vote would have been Redirect since One Life to Live exists, but I would switch over to Delete based on your presented rationale.
  12. I would mark article patrolled per flowchart and discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Marking articles sent to AfD as reviewed.

2. Emma Bolger

State of Article at Review: [2]

  1. Article is in English.
  2. G1, G2, G3, G10, and G11 do not apply.
  3. Article is not nearly blank.
  4. I can tell what the topic is.
  5. Earwig detects little chance of copyvio. Portion of sentence taken from [3] but is immediately linked to in same sentence, so seems okay.
  6. There are a couple of sources that seem to meet GNG ([4][5]), though not very many. She meets WP:NACTOR by the skin of her teeth with major roles in 2 films deemed notable enough for their own articles, so I'd say actress deserves inclusion.
  7. Title of article is very clearly appropriate as it's named after the actor, per WP:COMMONNAME.
  8. Has categories.
  9. Article has exceeded stub status, so stub categories unnecessary.
  10. I don't believe article has any glaring issues wherein NPR needs to add a tag.
  11. Wikiprojects already assigned.
  12. Mark reviewed.

3. Hemu's Samadhi Sthal

State of Article at Review: [6]

information Note: This review was not straightforward for me. My first option was going to be review as accepted, but decided it against it based on WP:INHERITED and lack of coverage aside from tourism.

  1. Article is in English.
  2. G1, G2, G3, G10, and G11 do not apply.
  3. Article is not nearly blank.
  4. I can tell what the topic is.
  5. No copyvios visible.
  6. I can't evaluate an overwhelming number of the sources on this page, though considering most of them are tied to the history section and just re-hash a lot of Hemu, I'd surmise they aren't WP:GNG compliant.
  7. The claim to significance is that a Hindu king died there.
  8. Not a BLP.
  9. Using news, books, or scholar does not bring up anything useable.
  10. In my view does not meet WP:NGEO. Not recognized by India as protected (that I can find) and the location itself has not received significant coverage in sources.
  11. I do not believe notability is borderline, as while this article has lots of books listed I would surmise all of them are talking about the king and not the site in particular.
  12. Despite chart advising a PROD or AfD, I see an administrator redirected the article in April 2021 which a relatively new user undid about a month ago. I would restore the redirect. If this was reverted again by the same editor, I would then take article to AfD (as obviously a PROD will be contested).
  13. Mark reviewed but watchlist article to see if redirect is undone.
  • checkY It's borderline, so I can't fault your decision, but I would favor inclusion over deletion or redirect. Why? Because the redirect will likely be removed as the monument does have verifiable historic significance. It is a highly publicized tourist attraction shown in travel pamphlets, and online sites, etc. My guess is that there are also existing books published in other languages that may provide more details about its construction/architecture, and the followers who built it. One example of an online site is Study Today. There's also the haryanatourism gov site which states: Hem Chandra’s supporters raised a ‘Chattri’, also called a shelter for travellers, at the place of beheading. Haryana Govt. plans to construct a memorial at the present site. Then we see it's on the government's list: Section 1.6.3 BUILDINGS OR MONUMENTS OF HISTORICAL / ARCHAEOLOGICAL / RELIGIOUS IMPORTANCE, and Action Plan - CPCB pass for historical monuments . Atsme 💬 📧 02:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

4. Dave Rosser

State of Article at Review:[7]

information Note: This review was not straightforward for me. My first option was going to be review as accepted, but decided it against it based on WP:1E.

  1. Article is in English.
  2. G1, G2, G3, G10, and G11 do not apply.
  3. Article is not nearly blank.
  4. I can tell what the topic is.
  5. Earwig got upset, but it's because other sources took from Wikipedia and not vice versa.
  6. So, this is a bit of a weird one. Every single source is simply reporting on his death, though they do go over some things Dave did that could be interpreted as notable, but those "notable" events do not possess significant coverage. The significant coverage is that he died. Googling Dave is either Wikipedia and every single other article is simply reporting on his death. I think this would fall under WP:1E, and thus deny this individual notability. Being generally famous as a musician for the The Afghan Whigs and his role in other bands (which were started by the same group of individuals) is not synonymous with notability.
  7. Credible claim of significance is being a musician within a relatively famous band.
  8. Not BLP.
  9. As mentioned above, searching just overwhelmingly fills my browser with reports of his passing.
  10. I think the only relevant criterion for SNG WP:SINGER would be 6, but the circular warning of that criterion may apply here due to the group of musicians Dave was around. All of the other bands he played in had the same people, generally. One of the sources in the article talks about him being featured in David Lettermen or Jimmy Kimmel live, which might have satisfied criterion 12, but I could not find other sources to corroborate him being the "featured subject." So, TL;DR, no SNG applies.
  11. Chart advises PROD or AfD; would instead redirect to The Afghan Whigs per Lugnuts.
  12. Mark reviewed but watchlist article to see if redirect is undone.
  • Conditional yesCY – trust your gut – your first instincts were correct in my view because he has "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable," if not only because of the significant coverage he received in death. I doubt a redirect will survive. The material in the obits published by multiple RS, include Variety, Billboard, Rolling Stone, NPR, LA Times, etc. is indeed widespread independent coverage about him in RS. See the "in a nutshell" banner at the top of this page. Another thought, the album Do to the Beast was a first by the band in 16 years, which is also notable as a "first", and his performance in is also notable. Atsme 💬 📧 10:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

5. WWE Hall of Fame (2023) Article was redirected at time of review. Moved back to first revision prior to this, being [8].

  1. Article is in English.
  2. G1, G2, G3, G10, and G11 do not apply.
  3. Article is not nearly blank.
  4. I can tell what the topic is.
  5. Earwig is happy.
  6. There are no sources or references at all.
  7. Okay, so given the unique nature of this, I will boldly deviate here. Having an article for each WWE Hall of Fame year seems to be a precedent that is set by going to the main WWE Hall of Fame article. It is also clear browsing previous articles going over the specific years that it happens at around mid to late March to early April in the year it's named after. Therefore, we are a year away from the 2023 version of this. It appears to simply have been created in advance as a redirect which an IP and now a new user are continuously undoing to add unsourced information. So, presuming this wasn't already corrected by Bruce1ee and JalenWolf, I would have performed the redirect and then mark reviewed. In regards to the redirect's validity, I cannot find anything in WP:R#DELETE that implies it should be deleted, and I think from an intuitive standpoint it makes sense to reserve and redirect the immediate following Hall of Fame as people may begin to search for it.
  8. So ultimately, mark reviewed but watchlist article to see if redirect is undone.
  • checkY Another on-purpose toughie. My responses are designed primarily to encourage critical thinking and offer other angles that may not have been considered, such as NOTCRYSTALBALL and V. My thoughts about this article: until the basic criteria for GNG is met, it should either be draftified, redirected (which was done), or CSD if the redirects don't work since it is unsourced and the material is unverifiable in the article's current state. Atsme 💬 📧 10:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, Sirdog - here's your first 5. Happy reviewing!! Oh, and don't hesitate to boldly edit if you've the mind to do so. Atsme 💬 📧 14:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

,Atsme, reviews are complete! This is where I knew I would begin to stumble, so I look forward to your feedback! I'm getting the unconscious feeling that I'm choosing redirect when the flowchart keeps saying to PROD or AfD, but if there is another article that is more general but the subject is clearly related, wouldn't it be preferable 9 times out of 10 to redirect rather than delete (aside from circumstances where redirecting keeps getting undone, in which case AfD would decide it's fate)? —Sirdog (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Passed – The majority of articles I chose for you were toughies, and your choices have all been good ones. Your work throughout this course is commendable. You are clearly investing critical thought and doing your homework. I hope that never changes. Re: your last question, see my comments following each review, and if you still have questions, don't hesitate to ask. I will provide 5 more reviews for you below per your request, but as of this writing, you have passed this course. CONGRATULATIONS! 10:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Additional 5 exercises

This go-round, please go ahead and take the appropriate action for each article, and provide an explanation.

6. System of parameters

I think you are really making me earn this green tick mark, and I both love and loathe you for it. What an evil article to place on my evaluations. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

So, in all honesty - for me - this article is unreviewable. The knowledge is so above my paygrade that I cannot answer most of the questions on the chart. I can't attempt to find my own references because, while I do get hits for Systems of parameters on Google Scholar and such, the phrasing is so general that I can't tell if a source I'm finding is about this system of parameters or perhaps another kind of system of parameters in another part of mathematics. SNG WP:NMATH doesn't help me as it focuses on numbers; not groups of parameters. As a point of humor, I see that reviewer Slywriter has also pseudo given up - the page is apparently unpatrolled, but they used the page curation tool to mark it as unreferenced.

That said, I had an epiphany about an hour or so into this review to check the page history to see if it's ever had references. Lo and behold, I find [9]. I can't evaluate the source, however it was added by a currently active editor with a Ph.D in mathematics. Odds are, the reference is appropriate. Is it notability establishing? I've absolutely zero clue. But, it does get the article a reference.

Official Answer: I've restored the reference to the article and adjusted the tag to say that more references could be added. Were I to have the NPR right, I would mark patrolled at this time, repeating basically the same chain of events from 2011. Looking at a couple of other mathematics related articles they also appear to be light on citations. The article has already been linked to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics and - considering the article's revivor, D.Lazard, is a very experienced editor (e.g mostly mainspace contributions, 25K edits, mathematics professional, no blocks, good AfD stats, has been drug to WP:ANI but appears to have been in the right, etc) - I do not believe I am doing the encyclopedia harm by allowing it to remain under their stewardship.

I totally get if this answer is completely inappropriate, in which case I'll just take the loss, but I simply would not go for any kind of deletion; at worst, I'd draftify. PROD would obviously get contested; no CSD criterion apply (or any that could apply I cannot do with certainty, for example, I've no clue whatsoever if this article is making a claim of significance - nor do I believe any administrator regularly patrolling would be comfortable touching it with a 10 foot pole); and I would be deeply uncomfortable going to AfD, as I cannot perform a WP:BEFORE.

7. Dimitris Patmanidis

So, this is actually a fairly straight forward review, don't need to think about it much. A much welcome change of pace from the above article, to be sure. It appears an IP editor decided to just undo a redirect with information that appears to be accurate, but is held in the article OAED Vocational College shooting. So, I've simply reverted the IP editor. Presuming the page need a patrolling, if I had the rights, I would do so. Easy, peasy.

While it is possible (but improbable) that Dimitris could be notable enough for their own article, at that point I would just be writing the article myself, which would be outside the scope of NPR.

8. Leah Felder

Most all searches for Leah online are talking about her divorce from (or marriage to) Brandon Jenner, who is in the Jenner family. Unlike Dave Ross, which I can understand the notability there, these sources don't mention things that she has done specifically whilst talking about these events. Most everything that may establish notability is purely on the basis that she was with Brandon or in the band Brandon & Leah. While the band Brandon & Leah meets notability, Leah herself as a musician or as a person is not notable. She wouldn't meet any criterion under WP:NSINGER; the closest would be criterion 6, as last time, but she's only been in 1 band. All other criterion would apply to the band, but not her (e.g billboard charts, creating music for a television show, appearing as a guest on a television show, etc).

My official answer is I've restored the redirect to Brandon & Leah which was undone a couple of days back.

  • checkY Well done!

9. Hrvatin Stjepanić

So, this is a borderline case (atleast to me). On one hand, WP:ANYBIO states that if a person has received a well-known and significant award or honor that could establish notability. I'd classify being the vassal of the ruler of Bosnia to meet that. There is also widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, and his family that he started is certainly recorded extensively in the historical record. On the other hand, even per the article, his namesake is that his family - specifically, children - were extremely prominent in Bosnia. But aside from his vassalization, there isn't much more going for him specifically. All searches I perform show insignificant coverage or evaluations of the guy's sons.

In this case, I would favor inclusion. There could be resources that I cannot evaluate that show more notability, which would make sense considering this person's position, and I'm comfortable with ANYBIO getting 2 out of 3 criterion met. I've tagged for a request of more citations, and I'd mark patrolled.

  • checkY There is a long list of scholarly/historic sources that I placed in the section References, and preceded it with a section for general sources. Without access to those books, we can only AGF that the refs & sources support the article. Another option would be to seek input from an editor who is versed in that history, or who might have access to those book pages. I would typically check TWL and might post something on the UTP of Megalibrarygirl because the page numbers are referenced as they should be. Atsme 💬 📧 00:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

10. Three Days (Pat Green song)

Earwig screamed about a potential copyright violation with basically the entirety of the existing prose, the violation originating at [10]. Our article was created on day 1 with that exact line of text in 2016. The website according to https://carbondate.cs.odu.edu/#https://www.lyrics.com/ was made in 1996. I am physically incapable of determing when the specific lyrics page was made (and it wasn't a lack of trying; I used the carbon date website, I tried searching the source code of the website, I tried running a year search in Google - the works). All rights on this website are reserved.

about 45 minutes later

I actually went to the CCI section of the Wikimedia Community Discord and ask for a 2nd opinion. DanCherek responded and said that lyrics.com is notorious from pulling Wikipedia text to it's website, and that it apparently used to have some kind of "More info" button that would declare this, but it appears to be absent. So, in any case, I don't believe a legitimate copyright violation is present.

In my view this song is a violation of WP:NSONG, specifically (bold added by me):

  • Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)
  • Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

This song has only been charted once, and fair enough the charting seems to be a good one, but it's a single charting. A cursory Google search (which is already impossible for a term known as "Three Days") doesn't pull anything else up. This will most likely permanently be a stub. TenPoundHammer came to the same conclusion, and so redirected it, but Donaldd23 reverted the redirect stating Charted. Deserves a discussion before redirecting. This exact same chain of events happened with Carry On (Pat Green song), Three Days (Pat Green song), Wave on Wave (song), Guy Like Me, and Don't Break My Heart Again (Pat Green song)it appears TenPoundHammer is currently at ANI regarding deletions, so I suppose doing so may be appropriate, but I digress, the appropriateness of it is outside the scope of the review.

I've started a discussion on the talk page. It may have been more expedient to simply nominate for AfD, but if Donaldd23 perhaps simply forgot a policy or is otherwise neutral and concurs with my and Hammer's assessment (or demonstrates notability), I think that would generally be preferable. If there isn't a response in a reasonable time period, I'll then take to AfD.

  • checkY I think under the circumstances, standing down & watching to see what happens is a smart move on your part. In cases like this, being right doesn't matter; therefore, it is always best to let consensus decide, and I agree that AfD is the best option in lieu of confronting Yosemite Sam types that may lead to a showdown (a name I borrowed from another trainee). Atsme 💬 📧 00:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Atsme, reviews are completed! I thank you for responding so fast to 5 and 6, and thank you very much for the course! I'm happy to have passed, and look forward to working as a NPR (should an administrator grant me the permission). I definitely learned a lot in the last week or so! —Sirdog (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Passed the additonal reviews. You are quite welcome, Sirdog - it was my pleasure to work with you. If you ever have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Atsme 💬 📧 00:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Ok, Sirdog - I've added 5 more exercises for you, only this time go ahead and follow through with an appropriate action for each article, and provide an explanation for each in the reviews above. Atsme 💬 📧 10:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Evaluation

Sirdog passed the course, and did quite well on the reviews. He has all the makings of being a top notch NPP reviewer.

CONGRATULATIONS, Sirdog!!🥂🎉 🙌🏻 The evaluation is complete, and you may apply for NPP user rights at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer. Be sure to add a link to this review. You can also request NPP user rights directly from one of the participating administrators. Atsme 💬 📧 00:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Tips

  • User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js - a very useful tool and easy to install. The script prepends a small icon to each citation in the Reference section indicating the grading and type of source; most are in sync with WP:RSP.
  • User:Headbomb/unreliable - another useful tool that grades sources using highlight colors
  • User:Evad37/duplinks-alt - highlights duplicate wikilinks. We should only wikilink once, sometimes twice if wikilinked in the lead and again further enough down in the article that it would prove useful. When reviewing, you can quickly find and eliminate wikilink overkill.
  • User:Bradv/Scripts/Superlinks - very useful tool

Userbox

This userbox may only be displayed if you graduate.

This User went through the rigors of WP:NPP school and graduated!!

|}

NPP Training

Hi Atsme,

Please, I am interested in the NPP training. I believe you are super busy. I'm a serious learner and creative. I won't waste your time. Please, grant me the opportunity to learn from you.

Best,

Beston Beston77 (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Atsme,

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

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

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

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

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

Backlog:

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

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Atsme/Archive_1&oldid=1181880453"