Jump to content

User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

I want to change My account title

I have some problem to continuing with Ayaz Nizami's title, because I am living Pakistan, and have some security issues, Please change my name on Wikipedia, I want to known on Wikipedia as Jazib Sarmadi. Please change my account title. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayaz Nizami (talk • contribs) 20:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note that it seems that you have an undeclared conflict of interest with the articles you have recently created. In any case you can request a change in username at [1].  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Louis Ramsay

Seems like the creator of the page you prodded Louis Ramsay keeps on removing it, might want to look over it right now. Wgolf (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, thanks. One more revert and it is the 3RR noticeboard for them.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

08:52:59, 26 May 2016 review of submission by Joe Barnes


I have made added more reliable sources as recommended. Are the sources I've selected reliable enough or should I look for more?

Good work, I accepted the submission.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The Candle of the Path of Allah

Hello, Do you have any justification for attempting to merge the The Candle of the Path of Allah page with Syed Jawad Naqvi]? Relevant sources have been added, including some from official Iranian government library websites, in Farsi (in case you are unable to decipher the language). I assure you that they confirm the existence of the book, and provide essential details, site as the book's bibliography number. I will be delighted to entertain your concerns, --Cuparsk | ‏الحسين‎ 13:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. articles require significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to be considered notable. First Facebook is not a reliable ref for anything. All of the remaining references to the book in the article currently are merely library refs, and all these do is indicate the existence of the book, but do not establish notability. Please see WP:42.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
According to the page you quoted itself, the need for an article's notability is not actually a Wikipedia guideline or policy. Anyhow, the book is sufficiently notable as one of the primary publications of this author, even if you cannot find a great amount of information on it in English on the Internet. I don't see why it should be ignored just because someone who does not speak the language considers it un-noteworthy. I assure you that the English Web is not by any means a suitable indicator of the importance of this book. Moreover, multiple sources were added, including from other published texts not available on the Internet.--Cuparsk | ‏الحسين‎ 13:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
You are free to provide reliable sources in any language you like to support the article's notability, they don't have to be in english. As far as I can see this has not been done.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Bhungroo

Please try to not jump on new articles so quickly. Bhungroo was only six minutes old when you tagged it for speedy deletion, and even looking at just the two cited articles makes clear it is not a commercial product and is highly likely to be notable. Fences&Windows 01:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, totally made the wrong call there.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

01:49:37, 3 June 2016 review of submission by 64.150.196.138


In regards to the need for more high quality sources. Does the page require more sources as a matter of point or more valid sources on the information?

Not entirely certain which necessity it is. ALso which of the specific links? The one denoting concert attendance or tour dates?

It needs reliable sources, please see WP:RS. It needs more than one of these that are independent of the subject (non affiliated) and these sources must have significant coverage of the topic (not just passing mentions).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright then, not sure on how I determine their independence from the group in question since as far as I'm they have no personal stake in the groups. And the articles are directly referring to the group's attendance numbers/tour dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.150.196.138 (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

An independent source is one that is not connected to the source personally or financially, and has no vested interest. See Wikipedia:Independent sources. The article just needs a couple more good sources.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Adesua Etomi

Hello sir. I was about creating the above article when I noticed there was already a draft article. I noticed the problem with the draft was majorly the references and incoherent use of uppercase for film titles. If the draft is accepted, I will fix the issues with the article. Do you think I should wait for the draft to be accepted or create my own stub article of the subject? I came here because you were the last to decline its move to mainspace. Darreg (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

either work on the draft or create your own... either is fine.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union Move closure

I am wondering what possible policy based rationale you chose for closing the move request at Talk:United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union. You didn't give one, and the discussion was full of 'slang' and 'informal' oppose votes, neither of which is a valid reason in WP policy to oppose a move, and there was plenty of people commenting on this fact. It seems that you engaged in !vote counting for the most part, especially as you did not give a policy reason for the Oppose in your closing. For such a controversial close, this seems an odd choice. I'd consider either changing your closure note to provide more information concerning your rationale for the 'oppose' ruling, or else reverting your closure and relisting. In my own personal view, it is clear to me that the people supporting the move, despite being outnumbered (but not by a very large margin), are making much clearer policy based arguments. If no action is taken on your part to provide clarity, I might consider a move review in this case, as this closure seems wholly inadequate given this case.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:CON.
(And as an aside, I wish you luck proving the assertion that I'm a vote counter. There is a rather lengthy edit history against that assertion...)
As for this discussion, while several asserted WP:COMMONNAME (which is what I am guessing you are asking about), that assertion did not have consensus in the discussion.
All that said, you are of course welcome to request a WP:MRV if you think there are applicable grounds. - jc37 09:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jc37: Except there wasn't consensus. How can you say that there was? Thats why I said it 'seems' like !vote counting. What possible policy reason is there to close this as "oppose"? I can perhaps understand closing it as "no consensus" but "Oppose" seems like totally the wrong call here, especially going no reason for the decision in the closing remarks. If there was consensus, as you assert above, what was the consensus? You don't just say that the consensus was 'oppose', the consensus should be that it it is opposed for some reason. The only consensus among 'oppose' !voters seems to be that it is slang or informal, but there are clearly several editors engaged in pointing out that this is a totally inadequate reason for an oppose !vote in the first place, and in no way invalidates WP:COMMONNAME. Only a couple of the 'oppose' !votes even attempted to address WP:COMMONNAME, most simply did not address it at all.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the closer could say nothing at all. Opposed is a valid close, and I could show a myriad of examples. I understand y9ou don't like the close, but it doesn't make it any less valid.
And I did respond to you above: WP:CON. Those proposing/supporting the move presented an argument, and it was opposed in the discussion. This was not merely a blank WP:JUSTAVOTE as you imply.
Please feel free to re-read the discussion and the related policies. If you still feel that the close meets the requirements at WP:MRV, you're welcome to request a review there. - jc37 10:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
As if I'm going to be taken seriously taking a move review against an admin, I've been burnt before by taking more connected editors to mediation, and it isn't something I'd like to repeat.
Saying nothing at all is a really bad idea when it comes to controversial moves, I think that is universally agreed. I realise that you said WP:CON, and I clearly stated above that there does not seem to be consensus at all. You don't seem to be reading what I wrote above as I'm not some troll who complains when things don't go my way, I seriously just think you made the wrong call here, and I don't really feel like you are taking me seriously or listening to my concerns. If possible could you simply look at the discussion again, read my concerns, think about it for a bit and get back to me and explain in a little more detail your reasoning?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Six Vita

You flagged the Sic Vita page for deletion. I will admit the page was short and not very concise, I was using it as a place holder until I could get home to my computer rather than use my phone. You mentioned they needed a reason to be on Wikipedia, it's because they are mentioned on the page about the Palladium in Worcester but had no page linked to their name. I was going to add the page so that the two pages could work in tandem. Railvas (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

About your phrase.

Insertcleverphrasehere is awesome. HalfLifedeCarlito (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

MGTOW mystery hatnote

I think 92.13.128.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s reference to "Incel" was a reference to an abbreviation of "involuntary celibate", a phrase used by the same general community that espouses the views described in the article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incels. -- The Anome (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your co-editing with me to the article on Lere Oyewumi‎. AI RPer (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC) 11:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks mate. Not sure how someone could write such a detailed article in english without knowing the rules of spacing with commas and full stops, but second language speakers can surprise the hell out of you sometimes. Thats my first Barnstar, though I've handed out quite a few, it feels good.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
AI RPer Here, have a tiny Barnstar for yourself for making my day... The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. For giving me my first Barnstar, thanks buddy.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm a native English speaker. I just like typing as if I were a machine for fun. But I try to contribute in ways almost everyone can agree on, such as fixing typos or reverting vandalism. I never received a barnstar either.
-- AI RPer (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for reviewing my first post to Wikipedia!. It's appreciated Natasha.Alexander (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hard drive bleaching

Thanks for your contribution adding the Hard drive bleaching article. Unfortunately, I've had to nominate it for deletion because the information is mostly already covered by existing articles. I'm letting you know so you are able to contest this if you wish, or fix up the article if you think it definitely needs inclusion on Wikipedia. Please see Talk:Hard_drive_bleaching for full reasoning. Thanks! — Alex Haydock 09:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a bad call, I changed the article into a redirect to Data_erasure#Full_disk_overwriting if that works for you.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  17:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Tanzanian Wine Infobox

Hello, You just reviewed the page I created, Tanzanian wine. One of the tags was "needs infobox". I tried to look for something relevant however didn't seem to find anything relevant. Do you have any suggestions for an infobox i could create. I would be happy to do so. Thank you. Sputink (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

In hindsight, other articles such as New Zealand wine and French wine do not use infoboxes, so it probably isn't necessary. Sorry about that, The 'wine by country' box at the bottom is probably all that is needed.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Information icon Hello Insertcleverphrasehere. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Dogodo Bau. It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. MordeKyle (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I'l keep it in mind in the future.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

sorry

Iam extremely sorry for one of my troll article that you have deleted. Iam new to wikipedia. So it would be of great help if you guide me. You are a good person. As i have read , you are a geologist. You are a great man. Iam 16. Itreat you like my teacher. Jyotishman12345 (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Miracle of Sound

Problem. Can you solve this? НоуФрост (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I can, but need some help with how to go about it. The image was provided by Gavin personally by email to me when i was writing the article and reached out to him. Moreover, he said quote,
"I am the creator of the attached photo and I give my consent for it to be put under creative commons
Gavin Dunne (Miracle Of Sound)"
How should I go about correcting the issue?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, not sure exactly what you'd like me to forward? I put in an email to address EN OTRS, if that helps. Also, nice work on the Russian language article, I will add some of your writing to the English article soon.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Sweet. Good work. I have a similar email from him, but this is good.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Approved !!! ) = Russian OTRS member not sleep НоуФрост (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Bering Sea Gold: Under The Ice

An article that you have been involved in editing—Bering Sea Gold: Under The Ice —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you.  Paine  u/c 03:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

MRM sanctions notice

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Your contributed article, 2016 Canterbury Earthquake

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 2016 Canterbury Earthquake. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – 2016 Hanmer Springs earthquake. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 2016 Hanmer Springs earthquake – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. David.moreno72 12:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I got that. The problem is that it wasn't the 6.6 in Hamner Springs that I felt up in Auckland, but rather the 7.4-7.5 that happened closer to the coast (the topic of this article).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yara Salman

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yara Salman, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Why not just vote Speedy Delete on the currently open AfD?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 North Canterbury earthquake

So for the assessment: It qualifies as mid. If anything needs to happen here, it would be a rewrite of the qualifications page, and thanks for reading that. Dawnseeker2000 20:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah after checking some of the examples listed, I released it should be 'mid' as well, thats why I reverted myself.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
So here's some more details. The assessment page was written in 2008, and the person who wrote it is not very active with the WikiProject, but a complete project-wide assessment wasn't done until 2012. I focused on doing the assessment as uniformly as possible. Sorry for the quick back and forth on this. Take care, Dawnseeker2000 20:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
All good, I was in Auckland during the quake, and felt it up there. I have lots of friends nearby to where it happened, all are ok though. Currently out of work, so as bad as it sounds, this is probably good news for me. Hope to work with you in the future on WP, I might join the earthquake wikiproject, as I'll probably be working on the recovery efforts in person.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Insertcleverphrasehere,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

User group: New Page Reviewr

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of First World privilege for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article First World privilege 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/First World privilege 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsrestoresanity (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Insertcleverphrasehere. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

EM drive

A photon rocket is not a 'propellentless drive'. BernardZ (talk)

As a photon has no mass, so that is arguable. The comparison between the EmDrive and the photon rocket has been made many times, thus it was added to the see also section. I wanted to point this out and perhaps did not use the best wording. But in any case if you feel strongly that it should not be represented I won't revert your change again if you choose to remove it.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll also point out that at the end of the conclusions section of the recent peer-reviewed paper it states "The 1.2 mN∕kW performance parameter is over two orders of magnitude higher than other forms of “zero-propellant” propulsion, such as light sails, laser propulsion, and photon rockets having thrust-to-power levels in the 3.33–6.67 μN∕kW (or 0.0033–0.0067 mN∕kW) range." of the three mentioned, a photon rocket is the only one that is self-contained by definition (laser propulsion often has an external laser).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  07:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

New Challenge for Oceania and Australia

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere,
Breaking the back of the backlog
We now have 803 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.
Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

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. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

NPR

Hi. Thank you for reviewing new pages. There is a difference between simple patrolling, and reviewing by New Page Reviewers which is intended to lighten the work load of admins. For articles such as 中伟钢物联发展有限公司 please include the language, and take a moment to do a Google translation which will often provide you with the necessary background for possible deletion. For more information please see the tutorial. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I usually do but wasn't sure if it was chinese or another dialect. I'll use google translate in the future to figure out what the language is and assess deletion criteria.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

EmDrive theories

Hi. thank you for your contributions on the RF resonant cavity thruster page. May we discuss about theoretical hypotheses on the Talk page? — Tokamac (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere,
Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

new page review

I know this is a systemic problem I should not yell at you about, and I know we do need new page review. But since you seem to be one of the more enlightened new page reviewers I have encountered (based on a quick overview of your user page) let me just express that it is very annoying to get 97 templates stuck to the article within seconds of its creation, when the edit summary of the article says "I am off gettin some sourcing that wasn't in the French article. Just saying. The battle was notable enough to be a factor in the Italians' surrender, shrug. I am creating it to fix a red link in another article, but I'll get it at least to stub. Meanwhile if you guys over in new article review were a little less yee-haw, we'd have more new volunteers to train, because this would certainly turn me off if it were my first rodeo. Which it very much is not. Anyway, any help/suggestions on not running new well-meaning editors off would be appreciated. My own thought is that un-automating the process would do a world of good. You might have noticed it was a translation then, or that I am an experienced editor, or.... Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not see your edit summary. An 'under construction' template would probably help avoid similar issues in the future. I did do an extensive search on google scholar, books etc. which led me to the conclusion (perhaps erroneously) that it might not meet notability criteria. Sorry for missing your edit summary, just not something I usually check for (I will in the future).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

Have you seen this[[2]]? He is still pushing his POV about Emdrive, just in a different, more belligerent way.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I had not, been pretty busy with the holidays, I am glad you brought it to my attention. He should have notified me himself as he referred to me (though not by name) in his post. I responded a couple times on the page in question. From the looks of things, you should get through this fine, but I would recommend not positng anything more in the section in question, even if others comment, as it might make you seem belligerent if you do. Rather leave it to me and others to respond. AN/I can be a caustic place to get attacked, but I don't see witch hunt developing so far. You should be fine.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Miracle of Sound

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Miracle of Sound you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GeoffreyT2000 -- GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Miracle of Sound

The article Miracle of Sound you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Miracle of Sound for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GeoffreyT2000 -- GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
(Notification per WP:CAN.)

Joseph Wells

Hallo. You just left a note on my article about Joseph Wells stating it needs more references. I deeply agree to this, however I have been searching for facts on this man since 2014 when I established the German Wikipedia Version of the article. I could not find anything more or better. It was just my thought to complete the list of the Illinois LTGs with what was available, which is in deed not much. If anyone finds more than I did, he or she is welcome to expand the article accordingly. But I thank you for overlooking the article. --WAG57 (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It is alright, he meets the notability guideline for politicians (automatic notability), but yeah if they could be found it would be great, if not, no worries.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Marshall

Hallo Again. You also left me a message about Thomas Marshall. Here is the same situation as above on Joseph Wells. I established the German WP Version in January 2014 and could not find additional sources. When starting the English version I searched again but without better results. For general information: Dduring the last years I worked on many (but not all) LTGs of US-States in the German WP and I completed all of them. In most cases they were well documented and they had corresponding articles in the EN WP as well. However in several cases the english articles still do not exist. These are sometimes (like these two) cases with limited sources. I can only deliver what is available. My thought is: We better have something about these individuals than nothing at all. Of course the little information that is available must be correct an backed up by the sources. --WAG57 (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Same as before, he meets automatic notability. Good work on these articles about old politicians, very useful reading, even if the sources are sparse.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Problem of the Media

I'll be adding the sources, and expanding the article a bit. I know the book because I use the author extensively in my research, but it's certainly not a mainstream book; which would account for the lack of coverage outside of academia. Happy Editing! Yazan (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, good to hear. I apologize for not looking closer at academic sources before nominating it for deletion.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  07:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Bhaleshwor Mahadev

Thanks for your messages on Bhaleshwor Mahadev. My first edit! Changed all the text to my own words now. Should not be any copyright infringement now! Nepalideveloper (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries, sorry for the aggressive anti vandal edit on your talk page, sometimes the templates come out of the Twinkle tool a bit differently than you expect (I meant it as a general warning against copying stuff, but it came out with an aggressive anti vandal message). Anyway, your article seems good now.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  12:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
thank for reviewing my pages Kyeopta09 (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's a gold star for you !

Gold star for your hard work !
Hey, thanks for being understanding. Here's a gold star for you! It's pretty! Nepalideveloper (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank You For Your Review

Hello, I really appreciated your time and effort to reviewed my article ‪DOS (concert)‬,

Best Regards

Puchicatos (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 803 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul Joseph Watson (March 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
poorly sourced, no in depth coverage.
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.
Theroadislong (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello! Insertcleverphrasehere, 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! Theroadislong (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Myanmar Bangladesh India Gas Pipeline

The article has been posted based on readily available references. The article is still referenced to reliable sources. Instead of out rightly rejecting the article can you suggest specific region where modifications are required? Once the article is up on wikipedia, more users can add more information and references which I alone may not be able to and need not do. Please provide constructive suggestions to the article, I will glad to incorporate relevant suggestions. If no constructive suggestions are given, I plan to resubmit the article. Ysp2015(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not entirely certain to what you are referring. If it was the Baatan Transit co talk page you are referring to, that article was deleted because it was improperly situated at a talk page, rather than at article space. You shouldn't have a problem recreating the article, though I would suggest using the process over at Articles for Creation, as the users over there are skilled with helping new users with articles.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  17:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Seabees in World War II
added links pointing to Savo, Manus, Pacific Theater of Operations, Attu, Hollandia, Adak, Bougainville and Carolines

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Network of Greek Radicals

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Network of Greek Radicals, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. ~ GB fan 13:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Insertcleverphrasehere/Archive_2&oldid=1045679579"