User talk:Devopam

Devopam

Contribs —— Home —— Talk —— Email —— Identity —— Usercheck

In the news

Donald Trump

The German ruling coalition collapses over disagreements on economic policies.
Donald Trump (pictured) wins the United States presidential election.
Maia Sandu is re-elected President of Moldova.
In baseball, the Yokohama DeNA BayStars defeat the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks to win the Japan Series.

Request for guidance on my draft article

Dear Devopam,

Thank you very much for reviewing my draft article on JAMA Cardiology. As I am new editor, I am hoping that you can help me understand some of your feedback.

You said:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I agree with you. My article only relies on articles from the JAMA Network. There are numerous mentions of studies from JAMA Cardiology in other reliable sources such as the New York Times, but I could not find any reliable, external sources about JAMA Cardiology as a topic.

Nevertheless, I still believe that the topic warrants its own article. I didn’t see guidelines for notability specific to academic journals on Wikipedia:Notability, but eleven of the thirteen other JAMA Network journals do have their own pages, and I think the reason JAMA Cardiology and JAMA Network Open don't have pages is because they're new journals. JAMA Cardiology has an impact factor of 10.1, making it among the highest-impact cardiology journals.

Where should I look for other sources? In general, what should I do to improve the article? I saw you also mentioned that I expand the lead, so I am thinking of other information to put there.

Thanks,

Benjamin

Taylorzb (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Benjamin / @Taylorzb: , It is actually a candidate for a good article , that helps people understand research journals. Unfortunately, while reviewing, the focus is on giving it a go or no-go at that point in time, instead of trying to edit and modify. Also, this is your article, so I encourage you to edit it, make it more interesting for a reader who doesn't have the insider view of AMA journals. Currently it is just a stub, which I believe is not doing justice to it. Add more sections, try to do a good research on the history , importance of the journal and then add it to the article. Devopam (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I will! Taylorzb (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why delete Mabrur Rashid Bannah

Mabrur Rashid Bannah page why deletion

@Ismailim: I did not delete, I opened a discussion for AfD with reasons stated here at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mabrur_Rashid_Bannah. Please feel free to improve the article, or contest the deletion stating your POV. I am not a proponent of outright deletion, and look for if curation is feasible. Devopam (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09:53:21, 26 May 2017 review of submission by Abhijeet 21

Abhijeet 21 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Stellar Value Chain Solutions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting for re-review because all the references are taken from news headlines. And news headlines are notable sources of information then why this article is being rejected again and again. Tell me the issue with the references.

@Abhijeet 21: please have a look at the comments posted on the article. That will help you identify the issues and subsequently fix. Devopam (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:06, 26 May 2017 review of submission by Cmm642

Cmm642 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:William Derrough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I just wanted to clarify the reason my draft was rejected. Sources provided were reputable news organizations. Would it be possible to tell me exactly which one is causing a problem? Also, how should I be sourcing "DOB, Early life and Personal life"? I have been using several other Wiki bio pages as precedent, which do not include sourcing for many of these items (ie: Jamie Gorelick, Andrew Tobias, Jason Rae). Would you mind giving me some guidance on what content I should remove to get this submission approved? William Derrough is the only member of the Democratic National Committee's "key people" who does not have a live Wikipedia page and I'd love to know how others succeeded in getting their posts approved. FINALLY, MAKE SURE TO CLICK THE "Save page" BUTTON BELOW OR YOUR REQUEST WILL BE LOST!!!-->}}

13:18:50, 30 May 2017 review of submission by Milan Reiter

Milan Reiter (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Uwe Marx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey Devopam,

thanks for your advice on my first article at the help desk section. I edited the article for Uwe Marx and followed the guidelines for references and citation. Maybe you can take a look at my changes. I would really appreciate it.

Take care! Milan Reiter

@Milan Reiter: article is in a much better shape than earlier. Appreciate the due diligence. Could you please address the following:

Please add some news coverage on the patents. I wasn't able to find it on a cursory look.
See WP:ELNO. Remove all that can be , per guidelines, else retain.
Few of the Media coverage articles should ideally be a strong reference indeed (e.g journal summaries)

Once done, please ping back, and I will be more than happy to be of help. Devopam (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :@Devopam:,

- I added some sources for the patents - I deleted some of the external links to his webpages because that is apparently against the wiki guidelines - I talked to the user Maproom and he recommended that I should delete the media coverage unless I can cite them in the article, so I already did that before I saw your response. A few of them are listed in the reference section tho.Hope that is not a bad thing.

Thanks, Milan Reiter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milan Reiter (talk • contribs) 16:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted article Hertha Natzler

Hello Devopam, Thanks for reviewing my proposed article. I am a bit puzzled how to follow up on the reasons for your non-acceptance. Your feedback was that the "submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources". I think I have only used reliable sources and I have accounted for all of them in footnotes. The fact that they are not readily available online, but in hard copy in libraries, does not mean that the references are unreliable, in my view. You also mention "Please help with WP:ELNO and preferably an infobox with a picture." I changed the two online references. Hopefully they are as expected. And I added a picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mockridge13 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mockridge13: You got me. This article was promising. Hope you don't mind me doing all the editing that I ended up doing. Devopam (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:29:18, 6 June 2017 review of submission by Kengillett2017

Kengillett2017 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Anthony K. Tjan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Devopam, I noticed that you rejected the draft of the entry for Anthony K. Tjan. The entry lists several notable sources, including press articles and television placements. I am curious to know if the entry was rejected because there were not ENOUGH sources, or because you don't consider these sources to be RELEVANT. Also, I would love if you could let me know what needs to be added/replaced/improved if I decide to resubmit the entry.

Thank you very much for your help. Looking forward to hearing back from you.

Best,

hello @Kengillett2017:, please go through WP:PEACOCK, WP:WEASEL, WP:NPOV , WP:ADVERT, WP:CS , WP:REFBEGIN and MOS:BIO for inspiration. Avoid MOS:CAPS. Devopam (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Spyros Rigos

Good morning The reason given for declining my article was "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." The article I submitted contained at least 3 sources of reliable information as listed by wikipedia Magazines Journals Mainstream newspapers

Allow me to be more particular. 1. The Tokyo Shimbun is one, used in the submission, is of the oldest and most respected newspapers of Japan with a circulation in the millions.

2. "Mancode" magazine is a printed source with circulation n hte tens of thousands in Greece (it is part of the Kathimerini Group, the highest circulating Greek broadsheet newspaper I can forward a pdf but here goes the online reference https://mancode.gr/about-men/spyros-rigos-filosofia-tou-judo-dynamoni-pnevma/

3. "Ta Nea" was another newspaper with a wide audience

4. "Athletes was a very reliable sports magazine of some years ago.

5. Athlitiko Panorama was a magazine/journal with a very high circulation

Furthermore 1. Judoinside is again a respected online source of judo info

In light oof there references and wikipedia policy, I find it impossible to see how magazines and newspapers with a circulation of tens of thousands do not constitute reliable sources

Lerounis (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Lerounis[reply]

@Lerounis: I cleaned up your draft, created the reference section (which itself wasn't there, hence the rejection) and suggested the corrective action in AfC Comments. Shall suggest you to look into that again and do the needful. Best Devopam (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Spyros Rigos

OK given that you created the reference section and therefore the article now does have references to newspapers and published material shall I resubmit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerounis (talk • contribs) 11:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:28:16, 8 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Robfour

Robfour (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Valeria De Antonellis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear reviewer Devopam, thank you for your help and clarification. I have looked at several pages of computer scientists. There are heterogeneous styles, either very concise or very structured. I would like to prepare a simple page containing a descriptive text with inline citations to appear in a single section of references. I have understood that reliable sources have to support the information given and must be verifiable. According to these criteria I revised the content of the page. May I ask you please to review it and give me a feedback before I re-submit it? I attach it in the following, in case you have time to take a look. The text is in the form in which it should appear, while in the list of References, for each source the corresponding url is added. If you don’t have time, please don’t hesitate to decline, and I totally understand. Your comments and suggestions are welcome, best regards Robfour

Sub

Valeria De Antonellis is full professor of computer science and engineering at University of Brescia, Italy, where she leads the research group on "Databases, Information systems and Web" [1] at the Department of Information Engineering. At University of Brescia she has covered several institutional positions and, as Rector's Delegate for ICT (2010-2016), has successfully led a radical and complex process of renewing the ICT infrastructure and information systems at the University - aimed at improving the treatment of information, communication with users and the provision of online services. Since 2008, she is member of the Governing Council of CINI (National Interuniversity Consortium for Informatics), the main point of reference for the national academic research activities in the fields of Computer Science and Information Technology in nowadays in Italy. [2]

She has done extensive research on database design and conceptual modeling, schema matching and semantic integration. Currently she is active on semantic web, service discovery and web application design. Within the area of database design, she is best known for her groundbreaking research, beginning in the 1980s with her work in the development of the comprehensive DATAID methodology, covering the whole process of database analysis, conceptual design, logical design and implementation. DATAID has become part of the "History of Conceptual Modeling".[3] In the methodology, she advocated conceptual modeling of both data and processes in database design, anticipating issues of the object-oriented methodologies, and her work is mentioned in a citation analysis of papers authored by the conceptual modeling community.[4] In the area of schema matching and semantic integration research, she proposed a novel affinity-based unification method for global view construction and the associated ARTEMIS tool environment.[5] [6] ARTEMIS was chosen by the Microsoft Database Group as a reference prototype for experimentation and development of automatic schema matching tools.[7] In recent research, she extended the ARTEMIS affinity-based matching techniques to propose an ontology-based hybrid approach where different kinds of matchmaking strategies are combined together to provide an adaptive, flexible and efficient service discovery environment.[8] [9] Valeria De Antonellis is author of over 200 scientific publications in conference proceedings, journals and books [10] [11] [12], among which a book providing a comprehensive introduction to relational database theory.[13]

REFERENCES

1. Research Group Databases, Information Systems and Web @University_of_Brescia http://dbwis.unibs.it/

2. CINI (National Interuniversity Consortium for Informatics) https://www.consorzio-cini.it/index.php/it/chi-siamo/organi/consiglio-direttivo

3. History of Conceptual Modeling @Klagenfurt_University http://cs-exhibitions.uni-klu.ac.at/index.php?id=441

4. Chaomei Chen, Il-Yeol Song, Weizhong Zhu. (2007) Trends in conceptual modeling: Citation analysis of the ER conference papers (1979-2005). Edited by Daniel Torres-Salinas and Henk F. Moed. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the International Society for Scientometrics and Informatics. CSIC, Madrid, Spain. June 25-27, 2007., Table 7 p. 10-11. http://cci.drexel.edu/faculty/song/publications/ER-citation2007.pdf 5. Silvana Castano, Valeria De Antonellis, Sabrina De Capitani di Vimercati (2001). Global Viewing of Heterogeneous Data Sources. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON KNOWLEDGE AND DATA ENGINEERING, vol. 13(2), p. 277-297, ISSN: 1041-4347 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/917566/

6. Silvana Castano, Valeria De Antonellis, Maria Grazia Fugini, Barbara Pernici (1998). Conceptual Schema Analysis: Techniques and Applications. ACM TRANSACTIONS ON DATABASE SYSTEMS, vol. 23(3), p. 286-332, ISSN: 0362-5915 http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=293150

7. Rahm, E. & Bernstein, P (2001). A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. The VLDB Journal 10(4)., Table 5 p. 344-345; p. 347. https://dbs.uni-leipzig.de/file/VLDBJ-Dec2001.pdf

8. Devis Bianchini, Valeria De Antonellis, Barbara Pernici, Pierluigi Plebani (2006). Ontology based Methodology for e-Service Discovery. INFORMATION SYSTEMS, vol. 31(4), p. 361-380, ISSN: 0306-4379, doi: 10.1016/j.is.2005.02.010 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306437905000359

9. Devis Bianchini, Valeria De Antonellis, Michele Melchiori (2008). Flexible Semantic-based Service Matchmaking and Discovery. WORLD WIDE WEB, vol. 11(2), p. 227-251, ISSN: 1386-145X, doi: 10.1007/s11280-007-0040-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11280-007-0040-y

10. Valeria De Antonellis @DBLP: http://dblp.uni-trier.de/pers/hd/a/Antonellis:Valeria_De.html

11. Valeria De Antonellis @RESEARCHGATE:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valeria_De_Antonellis

12. Valeria De Antonellis @GOOGLESCHOLAR: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=it&user=3x_jDOMAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&gmla=AJsNF4woBQFZYLvE1CWC9VH14iQcK0U79qH4s5FSgOY9NyC2GAzv04tJgXwnUJn986uCDHOR-w7zAJO41x96DzHesxjAzhqOXRurtHG4bfMVc3NogBY1ks

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=152178&CFID=771526800&CFTOKEN=94772620

Robfour (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robfour: If you are willing to wait till coming Tuesday , I can work on it myself. As I have commented, the person is notable, article is not. And we need to achieve that using Wikipedia standards. Let me know. Devopam (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Gold

Hi,

I have reworked the Ed Gold article, and I wondered if you though t there were now sufficient citations.

15:00:02, 9 June 2017 review of submission by Mcarse

Mcarse (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Ed Gold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Devopam,

I have revised the Ed God article including more citations. Can you advise me if this is sufficient for resubmission?

Best

Mark

@Mcarse:

Done

Draft articles → deletion

How do I propose a draft article for deletion? For example, Draft:Torrance T. Stephens. This article has been in draft state since 3 August 2016‎. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchumch: I have left a note on the last editor's page regarding moving the article into Sandbox till ready. Per policy , a draft can stay up to 6 months since last edit (which is Feb, in this case). If I don't hear from the editor within a week, I will move the page. Please keep track and ping me next Monday. Devopam (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of it. Mitchumch (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Raine

Hi. You marked this as having ′potential′. How is it now? Protozoon (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hello @Protozoon: while the content has definitely improved, the sourcing is yet not I am afraid. Please see WP:PRIMARY , WP:CS, WP:REFBEGIN to understand how it can be improved further. Devopam (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:50:45, 13 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Robfour

Robfour (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Valeria De Antonellis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear reviewer Devopam, I have just seen your message. I would appreciate very much your help! Best regards

Robfour (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robfour:

Done. Please see the comments , and make edits suitably later. Also, learn WP:REFBEGIN for better editing effort in future. Devopam (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Association for Emergency Psychiatry

Biochemistry&Love has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thank you for taking the time to review the American Association for Emergency Psychiatry page! (:

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

―Biochemistry🙴❤ 00:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:10:21, 14 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Robfour

Robfour (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Valeria De Antonellis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear reviewer Devopam, thank you so much for your kind collaboration. I have seen your 2 comments. I could edit source in the following way:

1) Current research interests include Semantic Web: Data, Services and Applications; Big and Open Data exploration in Web Oriented Architecture.

2) She has been Head of the PhD program in "Information Engineering" (Ingegneria dell’Informazione, 2000-2006) and led its transformation into the PhD Program in "Computer Science, Engineering and Systems Control" (Ingegneria Informatica e Automatica, 2007-2011). [1]

Please note that he reference website is the official site of the Italian "Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca". Could you please give me your opinion? Best regards

Robfour (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:02:38, 15 June 2017 review of submission by Santosh212

Santosh212 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:2017 Prime Minister Cup Cricket Tournament (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Sir, I have made some changes after you indicated some weakness in my page. Can you please review my page again and take further actions? Thank you for your response.

hello @Santosh212: sir :) , please feel free to address me by my name (which is same as the username). The page needs some real work. I gave you direction in the comment section itself regarding WP:CS etc. Could you please go through the same once. Devopam (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Articles Draft: Charlie Kerr and JPNSGRLS

Hi. Just to let you know that I received your editorial feedback on this Draft and on doing research on the fact that the music and acting sections do not meet wiki parameters, I will give it more time to build that article further. However. You also put flags on the previous article for JPNSGRLS about possible copyright issues for one section quoted as possible copy and paste, and the article needing balance. I have now edited that article for the both the copyright issue and overall for brevity, clarity, neutrality and balance. I request for you to please look at the article again and if you feel that these issues are now properly remedied if you could remove the flags on it. Thanks in advance. Corazon70 (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

article submission

Hi Devopam, Thank you for your help. I appreciate you taking the time to review my article. Unfortunately it was rejected so I wanted to clarify how I may move forward on getting my article through. Your comment was: "Could you please help with the references. I could not dig into any of the ones, including the books and get a validation, unfortunately." Is there any advice you could give me regarding how I might make the references easier to dig into? I realize some are difficult to dig up. I have hard copies which I could show you. I pestered quite a few journalists to them so I can understand how it might be hard to find them online. However, I believe the books should be very easy to find especially since "Japanland: A Year in Search of Wa" already has it's own Wikipedia entry. I look forward to hearing from you, Thanks KevinKevinJardine (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ian Cardozo (June 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheSandDoctor was:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ian Cardozo and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Devopam, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for accepting my article

Hello Devopam, Thanks a lot for accepting my article. I appreciate. And I'll work on developing the article following your review and recommendations. Joe Agbro (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Joe Agbro (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shantanu Bhowmick (July 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DrStrauss was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shantanu Bhowmick and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DrStrauss talk 10:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Rev. William Lawson

I just want to remind you that you have placed the "under review" template on this draft, Draft:Rev. William Lawson and it has been more than 12 hours. Plum3600 (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have marked it as off review from my bucket. Someone else will pick it up. I am currently not able to contribute due to paucity of time. Devopam (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: The Giants Club

Hi Devopam,

I'm a conservationist and great fan of the work done by the anti-elephant poaching company "Space for Giants" and so decided to write up a Wikipedia page for their "Giants Club". You recently reviewed this page and declined it, stating that:

"A lot many claims are not supported by reliable sources (see WP:SECONDARY). This article has very good potential. Please develop further and it will be a good read." I was wondering if you could state which claims in particular needed more reliable sources?

When you ask for more reliable sources, does this mean I need to quote the same ones more often next to statements, to back the statements up, or I actually need to find more references? I have used 18 sources so far but am struggling to find more, I am worried I will run out of references as there simply is not that much coverage of the company on media because they are still quite small.

Link to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Giants_Club

Thanks, Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebekinfo (talk • contribs) 15:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hello @Zebekinfo: , can you please have a look at WP:REFBEGIN, WP:CS and WP:SECONDARY and check if the existing draft can be improved based on these articles ? Thanks ! Devopam (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Devopam, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
- User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
- User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ludo King

Hi, I have made the suggested changes. Can you please have another look at Ludo_King. Any feedback as to how to improve the article is appreciated. Thanks.

Jaansha (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Jaansha[reply]

23:27:56, 8 August 2017 review of submission by MsPool

MsPool (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Adult Education and Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can I have my article republished? It is a class assignment.

Thanks, Nichelle

@MsPool: Hi, this will get rejected in current shape, I am afraid. Please ask the authors to go through WP:CS, WP:REFBEGIN, WP:YFA (most important). Devopam (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ian Cardozo has been accepted

Ian Cardozo, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography added

Good morning dear Devopam, thank you for your edit, I just sent a new submission, after adding a various number of international books that i searched for, that in my opinion can help proving the notability of Giovanni's work. Please let me know if there is something more that we should add to his page, Thank you Maria Rubtsova — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria.rubtsova (talk • contribs) 08:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... I just logged on after years... Sorry for the delay... Will arrange for a snap... How do we interact better via what mode? Parijat.punj (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Parijat.punj:, if it is about Wiki, then here itself is the best place. Else devopam@gmail.com should you prefer ! Devopam (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Devopam, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Re: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Igorevich_Gurevich

Dear Devopam,

You once kindly reviewed my contribution on High voltage interface relays, so I'd like to ask you for advice, as I'm not as experienced in Wikipedia, as you are. I translated the originally English Wiki article about my former professor Vladimir Igorevich Gurevich into Russian. Almost right after the article appeared in Russian Wiki, one of my professor's long-time scientific opponents started spamming his page with demeaning language and references. He makes his edits anonymously as 185.72.227.2 My question is how to block this user as a spammer in Wiki.

With kind regards, Vvkrivtsov (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Devopam, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shantanu Bhowmick (September 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Aguyintobooks was:

After careful consideration, I am unconvinced this professor meets WP:NPROF criteria.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shantanu Bhowmick and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Devopam, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Devopam. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Param Vir Chakra, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Devopam, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Mark Baum

I moved Mark Baum (painter) to Mark Baum and replaced the disambiguation page by a hat-note, it seemed to make more sense :). -- Luk ^talk 15:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Luk: Thank you ! Devopam (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Devopam, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

The total number of reviews completed for the month.
The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shantanu Bhowmik has been accepted

Shantanu Bhowmik, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Dial911 (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Devopam, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Devopam, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Soldierathon for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Please see this tagging and this edit of mine.If you wish to disagree, let me know or start a discussion at the article t/p.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs), thank you for providing the expected attention to articles that I edited significantly. Neither surprised nor have any interest/disagreement with your WP:EW begin. Guess this is 'your' wikipedia indeed. Would have felt better if you could actually contribute to the articles instead. Devopam (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this was my Wikipedia, I would have unilaterally deleted the article.That both you and me have to depend on the consensus of the community for either action, (given that it's at AfD), nullifies your ad-hominem attack.Also, please read the entirety of the policies, before you cite them.Also, see this policy.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for keeping Wikipedia thriving in India

I wanted to drop in to express my gratitude for your participation in this important contest to increase articles in Indian languages. It’s been a joyful experience for me to see so many of you join this initiative. I’m writing to make it clear why it’s so important for us to succeed.

Almost one out of every five people on the planet lives in India. But there is a huge gap in coverage of Wikipedia articles in important languages across India.

This contest is a chance to show how serious we are about expanding access to knowledge across India, and the world. If we succeed at this, it will open doors for us to ensure that Wikipedia in India stays strong for years to come. I’m grateful for what you’re doing, and urge you to continue translating and writing missing articles.

Your efforts can change the future of Wikipedia in India.

You can find a list of articles to work on that are missing from Wikipedia right here:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Supporting_Indian_Language_Wikipedias_Program/Contest/Topics

Thank you,

— Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia Founder 18:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Devopam, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Devopam, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hello Devopam, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie Kim

Hello there!

Thanks for the approval, but it doesn’t clearly seem to pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:NBAND

So, I don’t think it should become a Wikipedia page, it’s probably better if we leave it here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jennie_(singer)

Or unless you have another suggestion, you may revert the redirect and probably fix some sentences/find realiable sources.

All good 👍 K-Ghoul (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Gore Sings All About Love

Just curious why you removed the notability tag on this article (and the suggested merge tag) when the only claim to notability was that it was the first album that did not produce a significant hit? Ifnord (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hello @Ifnord: , sorry for the delayed response. Was offline over the weekend mostly. I see that you already reverted the edit without waiting, so I will pass, instead of getting into an edit war or an undeserving explanation. Devopam (talk) 05:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dąbrowski Manor in Michałowice

Reviewer said to find sources, like news, books, newspapers; The references are precisely from those sources - baffling.

There's an article on the Polish Wikipedia about the Dąbrowski Manor in Michałowice:

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zesp%C3%B3%C5%82_dworski_w_Micha%C5%82owicach

It's been on the Polish Wikipedia since 2013.

This reference does not qualify as significant coverage? This is a book. You wrote FIND SOURCES ( news · newspapers · books)

This is a book:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170829202613/http://dworyipalace.com.pl/dwory-i-palace-michalowice.html

This reference does not qualify as significant coverge? This is from a scholar.

https://archive.is/WdIqk

Here's the bibliography:

https://dnidziedzictwa.pl/dwor-dabrowskich-w-michalowicach#bibliografia

Here's a Google search result:

from the Małopolska Institute of Culture. That's not considered significant?

https://dnidziedzictwa.pl/dwor-dabrowskich-w-michalowicach/

The mansion is on a list of historical monuments.

http://mik.krakow.pl/2013/12/09/zabytki-malopolskich-dni-dziedzictwa-kulturowego-2014-dwor-w-michalowicach/

http://www.bezmapy.pl/przewodniki/palac-w-michalowicach-zabytki-w-okolicy-krakowa/

http://www.polskiezabytki.pl/m/obiekt/2941/Michalowice_/

This is a newspaper, one of the sources you say to find:

http://www.dziennikpolski24.pl/artykul/3265842,michalowicka-posiadlosc,id,t.html

Here's another source talking about the mansion:

https://www.worldcat.org/title/naddubnianskie-pejzaze-kwartalnik-spoeczno-kulturalny/oclc/802060578

https://web.archive.org/web/20180813054316/https://www.michalowice.malopolska.pl/spzm/publikacje/nr25_26.pdf

How much is considered "significant", if none of these sources are? Are you coming to the conclusion because the sources are not in English, they are not significant? Why are the sources on the mansion's article on the Polish Wikipedia significant, but on the English Wikipedia they are not?

The English version has more detailed sources and references than the Polish Wikipedia article on the subject, the Polish Wikipedia article having been there since 2013:

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zesp%C3%B3%C5%82_dworski_w_Micha%C5%82owicach

Here's another source, the Film Commission of Poland:

http://www.filmcommissionpoland.pl/locations/database/dwor-w-michalowicach-aKE1JR

Exxess (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Exxess: , peace. I only did an AfC review ! phew... Please try to address why this topic should make an interesting article/read. I re-scanned the article and it is not in a good shape . So many references (and yes, non-english holds equally good as well, to clarify) and yet a stub merely defining a building and its chronology. Take some time to curate it into a good/ interesting read that will help others know about this building, it's significance and heritage, in an encyclopaedic manner more on the lines of the Polish one. Devopam (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Exxess (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Parham v. J.R.

I think consensus is that all US Supreme court decisions are notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hello @DGG:, can you please help me understand the wiki rules here a bit more for my learning. I thought that will be considered Primary / Original source hence asked for additional sources. Devopam (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe any modern decision has ever been deleted in the 11 years I've been watching, tho a few have been nominated. The guidelines are what we do; you are welcome to test them, but I anticipate a speedy keep. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please review this page? :)

Hello Devopam! I hope you’re having a great day/night.

I just wanted your take a quick look at this draft of Black Pink’s Jennie that I’ve previously made and decide upon whether it should become a Wikipedia page or it should remain a draft to find better resources.

Here’s the link:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jennie_(singer)

Thank you! :D K-Ghoul (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @K-Ghoul:, done ! Devopam (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by K-Ghoul (talk • contribs) 11:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused now. You moved it back to Draft, when it was published already in Article space by me. Nonetheless, happy editing Devopam (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Developer Goutam/sandbox

Hello, Devopam. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Sam Sailor 23:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sam Sailor:, seems this was one of the AfC edits that I moved back to user space. But it's deleted so I guess we don't need any action on it per se from my end. Devopam (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Devopam, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js^(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js^(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
User:Primefac/revdel.js^(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js^(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
User:Evad37/rater.js^(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Devopam, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018^[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Devopam,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Devopam. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Devopam. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Devopam,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

California Consumer Privacy Act

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Devopam,

News

The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
{{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

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

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Devopam,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Devopam,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Devopam,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

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

This month's refresher course

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

Deletion tags

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

Paid editing

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

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Devopam,

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

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 804 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

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

This month's refresher course

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

Tools

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

Reviewer Feedback

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

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

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

Community Wish list

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

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

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

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect autopatrol

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

Source Guide Discussion

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

This month's refresher course

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

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

Happy Holidays

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Devopam,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

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

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Mabrur Rashid Bannah for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mabrur Rashid Bannah (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Worldbruce (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOPV in 2020 Delhi riots

Hi Devopam, I'm not sure but I believe that the article "2020 Delhi riots" violates some WP:NOPV. Based on my limited experience, we are doing a discussion in Talk:2020_Delhi_riots#NOPV_of_the_article. If possible please provide your views on this or else, please guide me if I'm wrong in this context.--Methu1 (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Devopam,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Devopam,

Year in review

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

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

Reviewer of the Year

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

NPP Technical Achievement Award

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

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

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

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Devopam! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 04:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Exilant Technologies logo.png

The file File:Exilant Technologies logo.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Uploaded for Exilant Technologies. No other use.

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]