User talk:Hughesdarren/Archive 10

Objection!

I saw that you draftified a list I started, by moving it to Draft:List of NIH Distinguished Scholars. I don't think it's fair to say there's "no evidence of active improvement" as required in WP:DRAFTIFY, since you moved it within a day of me starting on it. I would have worked on it more sooner if it hadn't been moved, and I just went today and improved the sourcing with proper ref tags and some additional sources not hosted by the agency conferring the award. If this list turns out not to be notable after all, I'd appreciate determining that through the full AFD process, because I'm having trouble working out how the notability criteria are meant to apply to things like lists and categories. So I hereby WP:DRAFTOBJECT, which I think means you're supposed to move it back? GenomeFan92 (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @GenomeFan92: I did move the article to draft as it was unreferenced. The onus is on you to have done the basic requirements before you press publish. You do not get a days grace to make the article verifiable and have some sources (Basically what the message on your talk page outlines). If you wish to take your time you should use your sandbox then move to mainspace. Now that the article has sources it can be moved back. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, Hughesdarren. Thank you for your work on List of NIH Distinguished Scholars. User:DoubleGrazing, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

I'm unreviewing this, purely to reflect the article's provenance, and in no way intended to cast doubt on the reviewer's autopatrol or other credentials.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|DoubleGrazing}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough @DoubleGrazing:, I had moved the article out of draft and neglected to unreview it once I was done. Thanks for picking it up and thanks for your work. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I often miss things that happen automatically, myself. I just thought you probably didn't want to give your 'seal of approval' to this article, given how it had come about. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White and Black River Valley Railway

I appreciate your recent review of my article White and Black River Valley Railway. I have an unrelated question. I have a reviewer who is point-blank refusing to allow a page on a technical college in Oklahoma that has 22,000 students per year, on the basis of “zero notability”. I have asked if his objection is to technical colleges generally or anything in the State of Oklahoma, but personally I think any state-operated school with 22,000 students is per se notable. He has also not replied as the what the appeal process might be. Surely, one guy doesn’t have the unilateral right to refuse a page of any kind on a particular topic. So what IS the appeal process, or who do I need to contact? Thanks. TulGuy (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Notability also hinges around have reliable independent secondary sources, if there are none or few then many would argue that the topic is not notable. Read WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). You are correct that one guy does not have the right to refuse. Before I answer the other questions could I ask what the name of the article is? Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autry Technology Center

The specific article was on the Autry Technology Center, which as stated is a technical college run by the State of Oklahoma and having about 22,000 current students (and presumably hundreds of thousands of alumni, since it has been around since 1967). After I posted the article, I got no message except the standard one that the article had been reviewed by Onel5969 . However, when I checked the page, it had been replaced in its entirety by a redirect page going to the List of CareerTech centers in Oklahoma. Since that wasn’t what I posted and I was unclear as to what Onel5969 reviewed, I posted an inquiry on his talk page. That message and his reply were:

You were apparently the reviewer on the page Autry Technology Center, but I'm not sure what you reviewed. The page that currently appears is just a redirect to "List of CareerTech centers in Oklahoma". This is not the page I wrote; I can repost if you need it. If there's a problem with the page I wrote, please let me know what it is. Thanks. TulGuy (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I reviewed your page, which had zero notability, and redirected it to the list article, which is what I said in the edit summary. Onel5969 TT me 10:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a state-sponsored technical school with 22,000 yearly students is per se notable. What does he want—Nobel laureate graduates? It’s a technical school. I doubt he objects when a tech-trained service person shows up to fix his plumbing, electricity, air conditioning, car, or whatever. Whether his objection is to technical schools generally or anything from Oklahoma, I find his position of “zero notability” elitist, outrageous, and way out of step with the standards of other reviewers on Wikipedia. I’m sure if he’s “called” on it, Onel5969 will simply come up with other excuses for not allowing the page in its current form, but he’s made it pretty clear that he’s not allowing it under any circumstances. I will be happy to work with another reviewer, or simply see a changed version of the page posted, but I’ve gone as far as I can go with Onel5969.

Here is the page, in its entirety. <removed>

So I still don’t see that a flat rejection was appropriate. TulGuy (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tulguy: The references from the college themselves are primary sources which carry no weight, Reliable secondary sources mean from a non-affiliated publisher of some note, usually newspapers, major webiste, journals or magazines. I looked at the first couple of articles which I would not have passed through (and may nominate for AfD). The list you have made is no help either see WP:OTHER. Your best bet is to look for more secondary sources and leave the text in your sandbox to work on until you find something more. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OVERLINKING

Hi, thanks for your work, but please remember not to link common terms and chronological items (United States, 2006, etc). Tony (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Holy shit that was quick! Thanks! X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 09:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @X750:, If there is Chemistry article in the review list I'll always take a peak. Nice work. Cheers. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Eucalyptus rhodantha

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eucalyptus rhodantha you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Eewilson -- Eewilson (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the review on @Eewilson:. Much appreciated. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC) ....and congratulations Hughesdarren, from moi! Gderrin (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Good to see a species article in the list. Before I get started writing up a review, I'd like your input. I had looked at this several weeks ago, and my first reaction was that it is not going to pass, so I let it sit, hoping someone else would pick it up. But, nobody has. So now, I've read the article a couple of times, looked at the history, and glanced at the sources. The article was assessed to C status on 30 March 2019‎ and has had little change since and has not really improved. The lead, description, taxonomy, and ecology need expansion, there are spelling errors (possibly just typos), and the taxonomy is out of date based on POWO, which is a standard now. It really looks like it wasn't made ready for GAN. There are important things missing that I would expect to see in a plants article. It needs improvement to meet the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, the Plants taxon template criteria, has taxonomic placement detail, taxonomic history, up to date taxonomy, up to date and expanded conservation information, a better ecology section, etc. So, as I see it, we have three options. Let me know your choice. I'm okay with any of them.

Option 1: I could write up the shortcomings and fail it, then you could improve the article or not.
Option 2: You could withdraw it from nomination and improve the article or not.
Option 3: We could go through a long review where I list the shortcomings (as in Option 1, only in more detail), and then you make the improvements during the review. This will only work if we are both invested in the review.

What do you think? I think Option 3 would be best for the article (multiple eyes!), but it really depends on the time and effort you want to put into it and how quickly you wish to do it. I usually do a review such as Option 3, but before I go down that road, since this hasn't been updated much in the past few years, I want to make sure you're with me on it. Let me know! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your candour. I didn't write much of this particular article but have written a bunch on other Eucalytpus species, and thought this one was better than the ones I created. I'm still happy to take it on if you are. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I am. I’ll get started! I can tag Gderrin if you plan to be involved, too, or just follow along on the review page. I’ll start on this today. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment that you had another bout of covid! Yuck! I hope you are feeling better. I'm taking a look at your most recent changes tonight. Stay safe. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Jacqui moved to draftspace

Hi Hughesdarren. The page in question is the stub of a translation of the equivalent page in French Wikipedia. I realize now that I should have started the migration from the interlanguage links there. What would be the best way to get back there? Should I just start over? Mark J (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's up for review now, with loads of citations. Mark J (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MarkJaroski: For biographies citations are needed or they will end up in draft or are deleted. If you are starting an article again maybe use your sandbox or add citations from the get-go. Another user has commented on the draft so they may pass it through to the mainspace. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, In any case I thought I would contribute, finding this artist to be interesting and from the literature, clearly important. I think I'll just let things fall out however they fall now. I've been neglecting several other important tasks to do this, so I'll just toddle off now and let Wikipedians decide if any of this is worthwhile or not. Mark J (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Hey Hughesdarren,

Thanks for all your fantistic work in 2002, (here and in the other place) and all the best to you and yours for 2023. Gderrin (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Hughesdarren!

Happy New Year!

Hughesdarren,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Award for 2022

		The New Page Reviewer's Silver Award
		For over 2,000 article reviews during 2022. Well done! Keep up the good work! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Hughesdarren!

Happy New Year!

Hughesdarren,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Eucalyptus rhodantha

The article Eucalyptus rhodantha you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eucalyptus rhodantha for comments about the article, and Talk:Eucalyptus rhodantha/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Eewilson -- Eewilson (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great effort. Congratulations! Gderrin (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article needed a lot of work, and you persevered!! Great job! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your help and encouragement. Thanks especially your perseverance @Eewilson:. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well done! good work! JarrahTree 00:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

review of Platybrachys

thanks for your super quick review and edits !!!..I have now enabled hotcat...which I whish I knew about earlier...cheersEdisstrange (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problems @Edisstrange: , hotcat is a winner indeed, keep up the good work. Hughesdarren (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eucalyptus salmonophloia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isotype.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Citation Barnstar

		The Citation Barnstar
		Making the effort from half the world away to find a valid reference for the Titicus Reservoir page and begin the process of properly citing an article that theretofore had none.

Which is simply an amazing thing - in terms of technology, what the encyclopedia is all about, and ultimately what you are all about as an editor and contributor here. 2601:196:180:8D80:9445:F485:733B:85ED (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the Titicus Reservoir page could have picked out the barnstar it would have been a Random Act of Kindness type, as that is what your effort amounts to. Some decent chap half a world away making for no apparent or self-interested reason an effort to do something extremely welcome, extremely helpful, on some languishing trivial matter that not only helped the page but is the sort of thing that inspires others to do the same. And in concert engreaten the encyclopedia in microcosm, and in macro, Man. Yours, 2601:196:180:8D80:2837:C16D:C0EA:8F4B (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation project to improve PageTriage

Hi, as an active New Page Patroller, I wanted to make sure you were aware of an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation project to improve the PageTriage extension. We recently published results of user interviews, and have some findings that we would value patrollers' opinions on. If you haven't yet, please consider adding the project page to your watchlist to stay up to date with our progress! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Lady apple" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Lady apple has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 12 § Lady apple until a consensus is reached. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Eucalyptus wandoo

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eucalyptus wandoo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on the review @Chiswick Chap. I'm back unexpectedly from a holiday due to a family medical issue and we are still awaiting advice from specialists and I am unsure how long I will be back for. If I do get to travel again I will away until June. Should this affect your decision to continue I completely understand. Best Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, hope all's well with the family. I'll put it on long hold. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Eucalyptus wandoo

The article Eucalyptus wandoo you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Eucalyptus wandoo and Talk:Eucalyptus wandoo/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Eucalyptus wandoo

The article Eucalyptus wandoo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eucalyptus wandoo for comments about the article, and Talk:Eucalyptus wandoo/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for all your work on completing the review @Chiswick Chap. Much appreciated. Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Ipomoea aequatoriensis

added a link pointing to Morphology

Leavenworthia exigua

added a link pointing to Cedar

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Eucalyptus wandoo

On 20 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eucalyptus wandoo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Noongar used the Eucalyptus wandoo tree (woods pictured) as a medicine and ointment? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eucalyptus wandoo. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Eucalyptus wandoo), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Good to see that today, pictured! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tugue Zombie

please review again Theresunset (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Theresunset:, Facebook, Tik Tok and Instagram are not considered reliable sources. One of the two remaining sources is only a passing mention but the last remaining source is a little more in depth. I still wouldn't review it to the mainspace if it were me. I have submitted the draft for review and another editor will get to it eventually, if you want to increase the chances of it passing add more reliable secondary sources to the draft version. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Wow, thanks for the speedy review! =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion Ryan Laukat

Sorry, i published the page without finishing working on it. I have done that now. Thank you for taking off the (speedy deletion) tag. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by William kohler (talk • contribs) 09:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

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

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

MGN events flagged as promotional

Hi Darren,

I'm new to Wikipedia, but have tried to keep the page as factual as possible - I've removed some content that may have been perceived as advertising or promotional language. Would you mind giving the article another look? Also, any advice on what I can do to make the page less promotional would be greatly appreciated if you have the time?

I've tried to keep the page as simple as possible and have used the listing on Wikipedia by GL events as an example.

Social Moth (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Social Moth: The page has been deleted by an administrator. If you going to continue to contribute to Wikipedia the article must be neutral and sourced reliably. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mesen (Emulator)

Hi. About your request for deletion of the page Mesen (Emulator), you said the reason is promotion. I don't understand what am I promoting, the Emulator is inactive no longer in development because they moved to Mesen 2, Mesen 1 is an essential emulator in the emulation history. it does have libretro core for the RetroArch. I was really in a deep stat of writing about it, then the notification came. and to be honest I kinda got sad about if I should continue writing it or not because I am afraid I will write then everything gets deleted. Open source on github. KaderRocket (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making my day from best to worst! KaderRocket (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article hasn't been deleted it has been placed in draft, see Draft:Mesen (Emulator) you can continue to edit there until it of sufficient quality to be put on the mainspace. The tone you had used originally was promotional maybe try reading WP:NPOV and also articles require some references. Have a nice day. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you didn't place anything, it was me who wrote it again from scratch thanks to Sir User:Justiyaya who made my article draft until I finish rebuilding it and continue what I was doing.

Plus I did not use any promotional tone, it's an emulator it's open source it's non profit, this emulator was a huge work of people all around the world in github I don't have to promote anything it's not mine it's not a company it's an Emulator, Plus it's libretro core is accessible in RetchArch.

No Sir I did not have a nice day ! KaderRocket (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there KaderRocket, popping in and saying that I would generally trust the reviewer and deleting admin if they claim that your article has a promotional tone. I probably would have done the same if the article looks like the draft now. The more significant issue is notability, as no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, I don't think the subject is notable and I do not think an article is possible for it here. Justi yaya 03:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand where is the issue, where is the promotional tone ? KaderRocket (talk) 03:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean Sir by no article is possible for it here ? isn't it a good start for the article ? are there mistakes ? I don't even understand what's the issue. KaderRocket (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, you can delete the page, it seems there is something happening this days or something, I get it it's not an article about a country or an actual big event, it's just an unknown emulator for you, it's not a good article nobody cares about this article, I made a mistake re-writing it, just delete it and I promise you that I will never write something on wikipedia anymore. KaderRocket (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy now ? KaderRocket (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I can't delete the article myself, only administrators can, but I'll pass on your request, have a nice day. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need anything from you, the article is deleted, I wasted time, it's my fault in the end, good luck with your life. KaderRocket (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gill

I do not see why you think Peter Gill should not have an article. He is, for example, a recipient of the Schrödinger Medal of the World Association of Theoretical and Computational Chemists and most of the other recipients have articles. The few that do not probably deserve an article. I have been an editor for a long time and administrator for many years until I thought I was too old to it. By creating it, I thought others might add to it but you quickly deleted it. I could probably add more myself, but I have other things to do for the rest of today. Can you not leave it for a few days? Bduke (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bduke:, I don't think that Peter Gill shouldn't have an article. The article in its current state is not fit for the main space and can be found at Draft:Peter Gill (chemist) where you can continue to edit and improve it. The article has not been deleted but will be if some references from third party reliable sources are not added. As a former administrator I'm surprised that you are not aware of this. Perhaps read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Hughesdarren:

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

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

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

There is a backlog of over 1000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		This award is given to Hughesdarren for collecting more than 200 points during the October 2023 NPP backlog drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to the drive! Hey man im josh (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 871 review

Thank you for the quick review of NGC 871's article. I wrote it because it's a requested page on the Astronomy WikiProject but to my surprise the amount of research directly related to it is rather limited. Most papers are about the galaxy group the object is in. Unless more research comes along for this guy specifically (possible, I'll keep an eye for it), I don't think it will leave the Start-class soon. Anyway, thanks again! DGSATI (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries @DGSATI:, thanks for all your efforts. Hughesdarren (talk) 05:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your tireless contributions to the New page patrol. Your efforts are immensely valued. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tree v Crown

Your comments are invited at Talk:Crown (botany) § Does the crown include the trunk?, because of [1]. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]