User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Free speech

Hello. I'm sorry if this is a bit late, but I wanted to explain why I made my edit on the free speech essay. I simply think that "your only legal rights" sounds a bit too harsh, like some guy said "I'll only give you this much of the chocolate bar, that's all you get.". I think we need to make it sound a bit friendlier. We, as Wikipedians, can do such a thing. We want to make this place more welcoming, I was attempting to do that. If I may, I would like to redo the edit, but change it up a bit. You may review my edit and let me know if it's good. Thanks for your consideration, Cheers!BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@BubbaDaAmogus: I appreciate your point and the intentions behind your edit, but I suspect the text is meant to come across as bluntly as it does. The essay is largely directed at people who will arrive there after somebody has supplied them with a link to it in the course of a dispute. The circumstances for this are likely to be that somebody, upset that someone has contested their changes, begins invoking their rights to do whatever they want (particularly First Amendment rights, invoked by people who have no idea what the scope of the First Amendment is). So, yes, the text is frank. Which doesn't mean it can't be adjusted to make it equally frank but, maybe, less rude, if you feel that can be done. I don't think it's particularly rude, actually, just blunt. Largoplazo (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I can do that. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Not to discourage you from trying, but I thought about it further and realized that the rude way of saying it would have been "If you don't like it, you can leave." And I note the language that immediately follows about how "we're not trying to be jerks". Perhaps that's mitigation enough? Largoplazo (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Queer tango updates

Hi, I'm writing to clear up why I changed female to "femme" and male to "masculine" in the Queer Tango entry. I think the focus on "male" and "female" is overly binary and really the point of queer tango is the fluidity of gender identities. I understand that a very basic level, queer tango used to be about "male followers" and "female leads" but I don't think this description is inclusive of trans and other gender non-binary identities. I would like to revert back to my edits, but I wanted to alert you first. LornaRichardo (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)LornaRichardo

Why the copyvio revision deletion?

You reverted (and erased from history) edits I made on Center_for_Autism_and_Related_Disorders. I made a well-intentioned edit to add references to published sources including the LA Times, which I believe is a reliable reference source. So I'm unsure why the history erasure. I don't believe my changes included any copyright violations. I'd appreciate feedback so that I don't make this same mistake in the future. Thanks. MarsTrombone (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@MarsTrombone: Hello, did you check the link I provided you, Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources? As it explains, even with a citation, you can't simply copy and paste (outside of whatever constitutes "fair use") copyrighted material into Wikipedia articles (or anywhere). The text you added was copied almost verbatim from https://thestaracademy.co.za/centre-autism-related-disorders-card/.

I assume it wasn't your intention to infringe on the rules, and no ongoing harm has been done. Please do continue to participate in Wikipedia-building activities! Largoplazo (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Largoplazo you appear to have the facts backwards. I did not infringe the rules. I helped create the original Wikipedia text and helped write that Intro text back in 2011. Please check the Wikipedia history for evidence.

The web site thestaracademy.co.za appears to have copied the Wikipedia text verbatim. You are claiming I copied the text from thestaracademy, but it is actually the reverse because the staracademy appears to have copied the text from Wikipedia.

You seem to be a neutral party here. Can you investigate? I'm being threatened with being banned from Wikipedia for this. MarsTrombone (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Largoplazo I'm looking over the 'TheStarAcademy.co.za' text in more detail. The site you linked is 100% verbatim, copy of the CARD Wikipedia's article text sometime in 2021. You can tell it is a Wikipedia copy by noting that the html hyperlinks actually reference back into Wikipedia!! This is a sad outcome, because it appears the entire article now is just a shadow of what it used to be. MarsTrombone (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@MarsTrombone: If that's the case, then I will have to apologize. Especially in the context of the other editor deleting the content and calling it vandalism, I assumed without looking that it had been placed there recently. I may have been too hasty. In that case, let me look into it further and see what's going on and what to do about it. Largoplazo (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Largoplazo thank you MarsTrombone (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Largoplazo - Based on your statements I'm once again being accused of vandalism. It would be helpful if you can respond. MarsTrombone (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@MarsTrombone: Sorry, I didn't get around to replying at the end of our previous conversation, because it looked like you had gone ahead and taken care of matters without my assistance, so there didn't seem to be anything I could add. As for your encounter with the other editor—I don't see that I can be of any help with that. Whatever points you would raise to me, you can raise to that user directly. However, do it on the article's talk page, not through edit warring. If you continue to feel that you're correct and no one else joins the discussion, you can check out the page on dispute resolution for ways to proceed. Largoplazo (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

This is good advice. Thank you. I'm posting comments directly on the articles Talk page. I did post comments on Talk back in March, but I guess this guy never read it. Anyway I'm hopeful it will all work out in the end. MarsTrombone (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Largoplazo - Your advice and guidance is helpful and I appreciate your previous comments. Unfortunately GordonGlottal is well practiced in Wikipedia legalisms. He's managed to officially block my page edits and further delete 95% of the Center_for_Autism_and_Related_Disorders content. He's managed to do this without even citing any references newer than 2014. His single 2014 reference actually supports the original article's text. This was all after I posted multiple comments in the Talk section asking for a discussion to reach consensus.

My take now is that skilled Wikipedia editors have "weaponized" certain guidelines and highly experienced editors skilled at this sort of combat can somewhat easily bully other editors into submission or withdrawal. I did read the dispute resolution page and it appears to back my approach to use the Talk section. But this approach sure didn't seem to work in this specific case. But further escalating and trying to resolve things is looking to become an time and energy expensive process. I'll have to evaluate how much I really care about this particular subject. MarsTrombone (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@MarsTrombone: I simply haven't looked into it myself, but one possibility is that GordonGlottal is right, and you aren't paying attention to his reasons. I can't say that for sure, but I noticed that when he told you that the sources you're using don't qualify as reliable sources under the terms of WP:RS, you based your counterclaim that they are reasonable sources on factors that aren't among those set forth in WP:RS, including "well-written", "does include a lengthy interview with Granpeesheh", and "the reporter Bailey Bryant has a Masters degree in Journalism from Columbia".

I saw that elsewhere you wrote "I've noted that you persuaded your friends to delete all the article's content". It isn't going to help you to make up your own story as to what's going on behind the scenes. Why do you think these people are friends with each other? Are you using "persuaded" to imply something underhanded in a situation where it only means "substantiated a clear picture of the situation"? When you speak here of "weaponizing" the guidelines, are you really not allowing the possibility that it's isn't merely using the guidelines for the purpose for which they're intended? When I saw you use the word, it was as though someone were to accuse the ticketing police officer of "weaponzing" the laws against exceeding the speed limit by having the nerve to ticket them when they were grossly exceeding the speed limit.

The situation here is that you've been blocked for edit warring. An accusation of edit warring cannot be fought with justifications for why you were edit warring. The point is that you're not supposed to do it. It is its own offense. You were put on notice about it and you continued anyway. If you appeal your block, and you base your appeal on an exposition as to why your additions to the article should have been deemed acceptable and why you consider it unfair that they were reverted, I guarantee that your appeal will be rejected, because it will illustrate that you don't get that the edit warring itself was the reason for the block. You will have to convince an administrator that you understand what edit warring is and that you won't engage in those actions that constitute edit warring.

You wrote "But this approach sure didn't seem to work in this specific case." You don't know whether it worked because you allowed little time for anybody but GordonGlottal to respond. Getting input from more parties and proceeding with dispute reolution may also not have worked, because maybe people disagree with you—which may or may not be because you're actually wrong about whether your additions conform to Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability and neutral point of view. I won't say that nothing is ever unfair here, but I've seen many cases involving editors whose belief that their contributions have been judged unfairly arises from a failure to understand or accept the legitimate reasoning behind that treatment.

If you proceed with this, simply take heed and do it properly and peacefully, not in a disruptive manner. Largoplazo (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Largoplazo I appreciate your insights. I didn't even know what the 3RR rule was until today. Obviously I'll take these lessons learned into the future. I'm mostly expressing and venting my frustrations with a process I may not fully understand (even though I've been Wikipedia editing for over ten years now). This other editor is very aggressive with his edits and his actions are not justified and feel abusive IMO primarily because his changes are not supported by source references and don't appear to be consensus driven. He has a strong POV which he's employing indiscriminately. Could I be wrong? Of course that is possible, but I've edited this particular article page on and off over ten years. I do have considerable knowledge and insights on this topic. Unfortunately there are not enough editors on this particular topic. I certainly would prefer much more community involvement with this topic, rather than less.

Anyway lesson learned, I will take heed peacefully and thanks again for your insights. It is still frustrating nonetheless and my feeling is that very advanced editors have an unfair advantage in dominating discussion or edits with their POV by basically abusing these rules. MarsTrombone (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Any status update? I'm blocked on this before I can make further edits to that page. MarsTrombone (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Largoplazo/Archives,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 805 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 851 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

you know that's not copywriting violation

I was also adding "oligoparaphenylene-derived nanohoops, a family of highly warped and synthetically challenging conjugated macrocycles, can not only serve as building blocks for interlocked supermolecular structures, but also represent a new class of compounds with isolable Möbius conformations stabilized by non-covalent interactions" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05498-6

undo you needless revert. it's a pain dealing with this nonsensical actions. 49.184.178.173 (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It is absolutely a copyright violation. Which is illegal. Largoplazo (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@49.184.178.173

how is it a copyright violation, I used one quote citing the source.

the other information is not subject to copyright, you know that right? that's how come similar pages such as "carbon nanotubes" can use the same words, they are the only acceptable words to use.

so you're wrong, and can't prove otherwise, and I can prove it, just check out any nanotubes related page that explains the process for making nanos.

understand? 49.184.178.173 (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

you know stalking someone is not what talk pages are for!

revert my edits, and stop your nonsense, you're obviously stalking and cyberbullying me, you are pathetic. you pathetic troll. 49.184.178.173 (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

You clearly have a lot to learn about Wikipedia guidelines and procedures. For example, you appear to believe that hostility and insults are effective while established procedures and guidelines don't apply to you.

I really don't understand the reason for your attitude. You've made a large number of edits that appear to be constructive, at least as far as I can tell, and your interest in contributing seems sincere. But the nature of your reaction to being informed when one of your edits or another is problematic wipes out any good impression one might have had of you and your intentions. Largoplazo (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Cycloparaphenylene

Designing a macrocyclic precursor with an odd number of repeat units led to a successful synthetic route via Z -selective Wittig reactions and nickel-mediated intramolecular homocoupling reactions, which yielded (25,25)MCNB over 14 steps.

these words are not governed by copyright, you fail to understand that, as I said, see the precedent set on every other scientific page, the process by which a product is made is not governed by copyright, BUT BY PATENT, FROM THE PATENTS OFFICE.

stop using the wrong words. 49.184.178.173 (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

"This (The X-Files))" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect This (The X-Files)) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 2#This (The X-Files)) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Faliscan editor

Worried about him as they claimed Trojan was on the UNESCO list and added something about Sumerian to Fsliscsn. [Special:Contributions/1.126.105.119]. Doug Weller talk 19:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a bot-assisted attempt to mass-add that template. See, for example, this doozy. I asked the editor for a time-out-and-discuss on their talk page, but they're still at it. Botterweg14 (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It was weird. A short scan showed that they appeared to be doing constructive work, and it's undoubtedly intended to be constructive—and then "Big Bird" showed up as a caption under map. Largoplazo (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Largoplazo@Botterweg14 I took it ANI but no response yet, could you all comment there? Doug Weller talk 20:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

ZIP Code

I agree with your comment re: a revert of the ZIP Code article. Had there been an infobox, the {{start date and age}} template would have been used in the infobox. Since this article doesn't have an infobox, it was added to the article text. Truthanado (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Largoplazo/Archives,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 13018 articles, as of 14:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

CARD/ABA

I think in your most recent comment you've confused CARD for ABA -- just checking. Happy editing! GordonGlottal (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal: Oh, shoot. You're right. I was tired. Ack. Thanks for the heads-up. Largoplazo (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. 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.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Mexico

Hello. About removing content from the article Mexico, I did it because the article is already too long, with more than 290 kB. There were also several unsourced excerpts, and as the subjects covered by the sections are related, I thought it would be a good idea to merge them. It was because of that. Just justifying. Thanks. Chronus (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chronus: That seems fine. It's a good idea to say something to that effect, then, in your edit summary, when changes are substantial and appear to be removal for no reason (which, unfortunately, does happen a lot). Largoplazo (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't add up

This edit doesn't quite go with the corresponding edit summary. You might want to check it again. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: That was certainly unintentional! Largoplazo (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

That's what I thought. M.Bitton (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

In modern usage

I don't know what this meaning is based on :In modern usage, the term ... It seems that we have to generalize this to all peoples, as the French people were among the nobles in the era of Napoleon, and the modern usage is who speaks French. This contrasts with the narrower traditional definition, which refers to the descendants of the tribes of Arabia (What about the Syrian desert?, there were Arabs before the Arab conquests in the Middle East and North Africa? There is no one who is Arab unless he is an Arab from the ancestors, and the word term should not be confused: for example, there are Berbers, Kurds and other ethnicities that do not know themselves that they are Arabs. Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I didn't mean, come discuss it only with me on my talk page! The idea is to raise concerns about an article on the article's talk page. You raise reasonable points, but I believe that there will be a variety of views and that this should be discussed. Indeed, it may already have been discussed, as I know there have been discussions in the past of this nature at Talk:Arabic. Have you checked that page and its archives to see whether previous comments related to your concerns have been made? Largoplazo (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider: I forgot to ping you. Largoplazo (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Largoplazo/Archives,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers

The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi Largoplazo/Archives,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Jewish World War Two Veterans buried at Sharon Memorial Park

gravesite section on veterans..

a rapid delete that fast u could not of even read this

quick delete on photos... thanks KID — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.124.227.194 (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC) ,a barnstar is too much on coding — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.124.227.194 (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

why are you so so so nasty on this

Jewish World War Two Veterans buried at Sharon Memorial Park.. a barnstar to be nice in advance.....a gravesite on a jewish graveyard ... this is not for a sandbox or a rapid delete

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Jewish World War Two Veterans buried at Sharon Memorial Park

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 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 patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. 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.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)