Jump to content

User talk:Lemongirl942/Archive 4

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

Please stop collapsing Vertex Venture Holdings into Temasek Holdings

Hello Lemongirl,

Please refer to the Talk Page on Vertex Venture Holdings. I have provided sources there. You may also want to contact Vertex Venture Holdings directly for comment as I believe you are in error. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caligarn (talk • contribs) 00:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Caligarn: Subsidaries of a company are usually not notable enough for a standalone article. The references you have given on the talk page are not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Lemongirl942 If this is true, I recommend that you fold up all entities considered to be subsidiaries of Temasek. These include [SMRT], [Mediacorp], [Alibaba], and [Singtel]. I think what you are not clear on is that Vertex Ventures is a group of entities that are NOT subsidiaries of Temasek Holdings. Vertex Venture Holdings is a subsidiary, but it is a holding company for a group of companies called Vertex Ventures. This warrants a separate page given that it is Vertex Ventures which invested in [Waze], [Grab], and more. Please note this article here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INHERITORG) for further clarification. Given that Vertex Venture Holdings receives considerable independent resource coverage independent of Temasek Holdings (see: https://www.google.com/search?{google:acceptedSuggestion}oq=vertex+venture+holdings+&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=vertex+venture+holdings&pws=0#q=vertex+venture+holdings&pws=0&tbm=nws), it makes sense for Vertex Venture Holdings to occupy its own Wikipedia Page.

Talkback at Renzoy16

Hello, Lemongirl942. You have new messages at Renzoy16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Discussion here (for future reference). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Rachitha photo.

The photo File:Rachitha Selfie.jpg you requsted to delete was given me by that person itself. So how can you report it for deletion???? Do you know her in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KumaraNeeson (talk • contribs) 11:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

KumaraNeeson, Apologies for the delayed response. But there was no evidence of permission that the copyright holder of the photo had indeed released it under a CC license. (The copyright holder is usually the photographer). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Dream Coder

Hi, since it is a copyright violation, I've come up with a new plot. Would that be too similar for your taste?

Zheng Hong Yi (Desmond Tan) and Yuan Jing Cheng (Teddy Tang) established BEGAN APPS three years back. Hong Yi is inspired by He Jian Ming's (Aloysius Pang) capacity to unravel his recreations outline and contracts him. Be that as it may, the organization's product design Fang Ru (Carrie Wong) can't coexist with Jian Ming. At the point when Jian Ming at long last accumulates his valor to pronounce his adoration for Fang Ru, he understands she is enamored with Zhong Zhen Long (Romeo Tan). Zhen Long's previous sweetheart, Rui Qing (Seraph Sun) returns and the combine needs to set their emotions aside. Zhong Ya Yun (Joanne Peh) was an upbeat housewife who lost everything after her significant other runs off with his courtesan, taking without end all their cash. At first subject to her sibling Zhen Long, she lifts herself up and joins BEGAN APPS as a Data Analyst. Exactly when BEGAN APPS is going to bring off with a noteworthy venture, Jing Cheng betray the organization. Hong Yi is profoundly harmed by his closest companion's treachery and separates…

33ryantan (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello 33ryantan. Thank you for your efforts and apologies for my late reply. However, if I compare the paragraph above to the original, it seems quite similar. This is what we call Close paraphrasing and unfortunately, this cannot be used as well.
Usually a plot summary (or overview) should generally be written in one's own words. For example, see The_Big_Bang_Theory_(season_1)#Overview. The overview should very briefly summarise what happens in the entire series. Let me know if you have any further clarification. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Bias moderation

You issued me a warning for edit war, but not the other guy. It takes two to tango, if I'm guilty, he would be too. Point of view is always subjective. It was the other two guy who made changes, I merely undo their edit and revert to the original content, one of which is sourced from an article, refer to the section "Reaction." I think it should be kept as it is, as it is reaction from victim's perspective, Choice of words will be subjective to different folks. If someone make edit like them, usually he'll get warned. Instead you sided with them. Bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murugen (talk • contribs) 12:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Murugen. The edits by the other editor (Bertdrunk) are OK here. The way NPOV works is that we do not use subjective descriptions in Wikipedia's voice. As such, Wikipedia is not supposed to judge whether it is an "unjustified" or "justified" detention. We simply say it was a detention. This is applied consistently towards article such as Internment of Japanese Americans. I wasn't siding with the other editor, but rather just going by how NPOV works. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. The reason he gave for editing was "unsourced content" but a word/adjective can't be sourced. In fact, "decisive" is not subjective if you read up neutral account of the war. There's a degree of bias from him, let's be honest. I understand NPOV, but "unjustified" is taken from a source article quoted, and it is from the "Reaction" column where victim's view and reaction are stated, not Wiki. Hence, I think it should be kept, otherwise no point having a "Reaction" column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murugen (talk • contribs) 14:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Murugen: Generally for contentious labels, we do require sources. In this case for example, the term "unjustified" is not there in the source. I understand that it may be seem strange at first, but our NPOV policy ensures that we have a detached tone and objective prose when describing events. As for the term "decisive" it doesn't seem to be used in the main article (and if I remember correctly, consensus at WP:MILHIST was against using such labels, unless absolutely necessary). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand. That Wiki page isn't about war anyway, I don't wish to dwell on it too. However, the "injustice" part is valid. The source clearly talks about injustice, hence the need for an apology. Not to mention, it is written under "Reaction" column, which is intended to express victims reaction. It doesn't come under the main subject. Do take that into consideration, it's a valid point. If victims view are prohibited, then we are not being partial and neutral. Various Wikipedia articles allow such viewpoint as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murugen (talk • contribs) 16:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, the problem in this case is that a victim's viewpoint should clearly mention it so. In the current article, it is not. Rather it makes it feel as if Wikipedia is saying that the internment was "unjustified". The content is also not directly stated in the source. Anyway, I will look for better sources for this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Big Pun. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Smush123 (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikihounding

Rather than reverting my edits, perhaps your efforts would be better spent, and more productive, improving the pages you consider lacking instead of just reverting everything as you are not building on what is there simply removing. I consider your actions to be WP:WIKIHOUND please refrain from doing so going forward. Thanks Smush123 (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Smush123: You are adding poorly sourced information and it not helping to build the encyclopaedia. Some of the content you added also deals with living people for which we have strict requirements (see WP:BLP). I tried to explain it to you multiple times but I don't see any indication that you listened. Anyway, if you still feel that my actions are disruptive (or against any policy), please feel free to report me. Thank you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey

Hey how are you?. Pew is a reliable source, according to the table data, 67% of Christian have had college or postgraduate education, the highest of any religious group in Singapore, (compare to 65% of Hindu, 61% of Unaffiliated, 37% of Buddhist and 33% of Muslim in Singapore). the data has been took from Census 2010, which is also a reliable source, may i ask why my edit been reverted?. Thanks and have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jobas:, that is still a primary source though. We generally require secondary sources. The other reason for removal is that Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. In this case, it is a random statistic for one year (and sourced to a primary source). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jobas: To give just two examples of why the edit is inappropriate and a secondary source should be located: You don't know the margin of error in that survey, and the differences between the figures for Christians, Hindus and unaffiliated are so small as to be functionally negligible; also, you wrote "university degree" where the source said "post-secondary degree" -- junior colleges, etc. are not universities. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey how are you?, I checked the 2010 Census p.32, the data is kinda similar, according to the source Between 2000 and 2010 Christians remained the largest religious group among university graduates. Is still a primary source to be added in that article?. Thanks, and have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
An editor should not choose information from a primary source (known as "cherry picking") because that might lead to WP:UNDUE factoids being reported. For example, you appear to be relying on a row in a table showing Christianity with the highest number. However, that is in the "Religious Affiliation and Education Attainment" section on page 31 of the pdf, and that section starts with, "The proportion of residents who reported no religion was higher among the higher educated than the lower educated." That quoted text is the first of a few key points selected by the source—why not mention that factoid? By the way, this discussion should be at the article talk page (Talk:Religion in Singapore). That allows it be readily found by anyone interested in the article, now or in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: thanks for you answer, it could be add as well in there own section, I was asking about marital in the Christian section that been also mention in the report, the martial about the no religion community information it should be under the section of no religion, so I'm not trying to cherry picking, I was asking about martial in that article relevant to section called Christianity. The no religion martial is relevant to section no religion, Anyway it was only question about a source, Thanks and have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Chang Ming diet deletion

I'm confused about your removal of the references to Aileen Yeoh and the Chang Ming diet. These references are to newspaper articles published by the Straits Times and not by Aileen Yeoh herself. Wikipedia policy states that "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia"[1] They are reports in a newspaper and not really primary sources. Also her book is published by an independent third party publisher. These both contain important information about the Chang Ming diet which is not an invention of Aileen Yeoh herself or Chee Soo but common to many Chinese Medicine schools in China and the Far East including Singapore. There are also reviews of her book [2], and it is recommended reading on some herbal medicine courses[3][4] and by acupuncurists [5][6]. I think it's more important to include this reliably published information about Chang Ming than to worry about Wikipedia policy on primary sources which is a matter of interpretation and not really applicable to this case. What is your opinion on the matter?

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources
  2. ^ http://nuherbs.com/resources/cookbook_reviews
  3. ^ https://daoisttraditions.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/CCHM-Book-List-Term-1.pdf
  4. ^ http://www.seed.org/jsobt/Journal4.pdf
  5. ^ http://perfettoacupuncture.com/blog/2017/1/20/nourishing-life-winter-tips-for-cultivating-health-longevity
  6. ^ http://www.acupuncturemainline.com/professional-memberships--resources.html

Chuangzu (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Chuangzu: Adding the book is what we call WP:COATRACK and WP:PROMO. Unless multiple reliable secondary sources talk about the book itself, we are not supposed to mention it. The sources that you have shown above are not what we call WP:RS - vendors and self published websites. I also realise that you have a conflict of interest, so I would prefer if you do not edit the article yourself, but discuss changes on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Lemongirl942 I started this chat on your talk page as a matter of courtesy and asking your opinion. I am not in any way affiliated or benefiting from selling books by Aileen Yeoh. Now I see you have added templates to the Chee Soo page, it would be much more appropriate if you were to add at least some discussion or explanation of your actions on the talk page. You may have noticed that there is some trolling going on and I have been suffering some harassment from an anonymous user there and you are not helping matters at all by implying that my interest in the article is some kind of conflict which it is not. The information is biographical about an author who died before Google was invented, the references are all pertinent and accurate and the article is written entirely from a neutral standpoint except where the anonymous user has added originally researched sections which need removed or at the very least completely rewritten. I cherish my anonymity just the same way the anonymous user does and so do you I expect and I am not about to be called out for even more harassment and insults from this guy who has done little more than original research on some forums and chat channels heavily laced with a ton of personal insults and insinuations and no evidence to back them up. TAO.org is not my website and I am not affiliated with it. May I respectfully remind you that anonymity takes precedence over COI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Chuangzu (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Chuangzu: There is enough proof that you have some sort of conflict of interest. I am simply asking you to declare it. I left a message on your talk page, you deleted it. Now you are unilaterally removing templates from the article. Just to let you know, COI is not a problem. But you need to declare it. I would be happy if you do that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Lemongirl942 I am sorry you are unhappy but I do not have a Conflict of Interest. Please do not keep edit warring by reverting my changes to the article, instead discuss your reasons on the article talk page, that is the best policy dont you agree? Look at the post above this one, another user accusing you of edit warring and Wikihounding, is this the action of a responsible editor? Please read this WP:AGF

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chee Soo. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. Chuangzu (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Chuangzu Excellent. Revenge templating me while asking me to WP:AGF? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Lemongirl942I respectfully and humbly asked for your advice, you ignored me and instead you were the one who started using templates instead of engaging in a proper discussion. It would be better for you to start talking about the article you are unhappy about instead of talking in wiki-jargon which I have no idea what you are talking about. WP:AGFChuangzu (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for helping out with the articles and all! Wikipedia wouldn't be the same (somewhat neutral) without people like you. From a fellow Singaporean glad that your like exists. Reynarded (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Can i transfer all my deleted content into a seperate webpage i am developing?

Hi, Can i transfer all my deleted content into a seperate webpage i am developing? Thanks118 alex 23:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello 118 alex. The reason why your articles were deleted was because it was copied from LandTransportGuru. Unfortunately, copying content is just not allowed on Wikipedia - even if you copy it into one of your sandbox pages (Such as User:118 alex/Bukit Merah Bus Package), it is still not allowed. The best way to write an article is to first find sources, determine if the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and then write it only in your own words.
Btw, when you say you want to develop a "separate webpage", do you mean an article on Wikipedia? Or do you mean a webpage on a different website? -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Referring to Public Transport Guru my new webpage.118 alex 06:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@118 alex: Is that is a separate website/blog, then it depends on you (though I will strongly urge you not to copy stuff). However, the content that was copied and pasted on Wikipedia cannot be restored. Btw, please do keep a watch on you talk page User talk:118 alex. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to the Wikipedia Johor Meetup 2

The 5th Wikipedia Malaysia Meetup will be held for the second time in Johor. Since it is at holiday, check it out if you have time!

  • Date: Saturday, 18 March 2017
  • Time: 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. (Malaysia Standard Time, UTC+8:00)
  • Venue: Al-Haji Grand Restaurant, Jalan Austin Heights 8/2, Taman Mount Austin, Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia (1°33′43.2″N 103°46′34.6″E / 1.562000°N 103.776278°E / 1.562000; 103.776278)
  • Medium of communication:
    • English language - for the general overall meetup
    • Malay language - for Malay Wikipedia section (subject to request)

This meetup was initiated by Chongkian and the invitation was written and sent by NgYShung. For more information and updates, see the meetup page. If there is any enquirers, feel free to discuss at the talk page. If you wish to opt-out of any future Malaysia meetup invitation, please add your name here. (Delivered: 03:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC))

Management of Conflict of Interest

Hi Lemongirl942, I found that you have raised a conflict of interest on the page Timir Biswas. I am still unsure why have you raised the issue. I have tried my best to keep the article neutral throughout. I would like to let you know that the page is about a famous musician. Most of the content I have provided on wikipedia are sourced from relevant articles, news, interviews, reviews etc. (whose sources I have appropriately provided throughout). I would also like to let you know that I am in no way related to the aforementioned Musician, nor have he asked to me create a page or paid me to do so.

Could you please help me with what should I exactly do to resolve the issue you have raised? Thank you for taking your time to read this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainzlife007 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Rainzlife007. Quite a lot of the content you have added indicates that you have access to certain information which is clearly not there in the sources. Just to let you know, COI itself is not a problem. Here on Wikipedia (as in academia) we have ways to manage it. The first step is a declaration. And the second a peer review. As a first step, would you please declare your conflict of interest? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Thank you for clarifying. I would however like to let you know, that the page in concern is about a Musician/Singer. I gathered most of the information from web sources (most of which i have cited already). The said musician updates his audience about upcoming works through facebook and facebook live (which in wikipedia is not considered as a trusted source) hence I am unable to source them. I would also like to reiterate the fact that I am not related to the said musician as per the norms in the COI in Wikipedia. In this situation, how am I supposed to decalre my COI. Could you please help me on this? Also could you please let me know that which part of the content is actually unsourced? I would also like to take this opportunity to Thank you for your brilliant work in the Wiki-community and keeping the Integrity and Reliablity of wikipedia intact and secure. Thank you. -- Rainzlife007 (talk)
Don't bother trying to flatter Lemongirl942 for her contributions Rainzlife007, if you scroll up you will see this is not the only COI issue she has raised lately, there are a few. If you declare your conflict of interest she will simply try to persuade you to stop editing said article. Lemongirl942 uses Google and other internet resources, she does not read books or have any other kind of source of information about subjects. She mistakenly thinks having an interest in a subject is a conflict which it is not. Conflict of Interest is for people who are paid to edit Wikipedia or who are related to the subject for example a family member, it does not apply to everyone who is interested in a subject.Chuangzu (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
To Chuangzu. There is a saying that the great masters do not need to prove their knowledge. They can stay silent and the world will notice and elevate them. Those, who constantly strive to prove their knowledge by putting others down, are not great. Likewise, the wise editor, edits harmoniously, leaving contentious edits to community consensus. The average editor, tries to force through changes once in a while. The novice editor will insist that they are right and everyone else is wrong. The understanding of the Tao differs from person to person. Those who loudly proclaim to have understood, are usually the ones who have a long way to go. Not to lose one's patience with those who are still trying to understand, is an essential tenet of the Tao. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
To Lemongirl942. Do you have a third party independently published secondary source for that saying Lemongirl942? In fact it comes from the Tao Teh Ching by Lao Tzu, but the point being that a sage is not concerned with being noticed or elevated by the world. Chuangzu (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

What is the issue with the edits to Vanguard

Let me know specifically — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.251.68.93 (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

You are adding a bunch of content which is entirely sourced to primary sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

205.251.68.93 (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)FIne, Ill take that out or add other sources but the rest of the changes were good

Your edits are changing a lot of content. It is adding promotional material based on questionable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOR

Resolved here --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1) What do you mean by no original research on Swami Nithyananda?
2) What I stated is true, is it not? What is COI about the edit?
3) Would it not be a better solution to add a "Controversy" section mentioning the allegations AND lack of conviction? Because right now the allegations are continuously weaved into the article body, not just at the point where I edited. I can see controversy section was removed - but what is the point if editors are mentioning it anyway? DocTox (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BloombergQuint

Move to Draft and Notice

I am curious as to why the Conflict of Interest tag was added to this page. I created this page using some reference links I found online. Additionally, I purposely used a diverse portfolio of reference material to supplement the content of this page. Would like to know the reason for the addition of Conflict of Interest Tag

Additionally, I am also curious as to why Draftify was appended to this particular page. I have tried to ensure that the content and overall tonality conforms with guidelines that exist on WikipediaFlyingBlueDream (talk) 12:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Lemongirl942, can you please give me some information about this? Thanks! FlyingBlueDream (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

2605:e000:61dd:5800:3c8f:19f6:b630:e719

Deleted content after your vand4im, do you want to report 'em? 2605:e000:61dd:5800:3c8f:19f6:b630:e719 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh haha, I just saw that you reported. Thank you so much! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Question by Hohosiu101

i m chan fai young , i don't use "keith" this name , that was my old name i use 20 years ago , if u people insist on put that on , this make me lots of trouble , would u like to kindly remove it (on the link and page name) for me please , actually there is a not of wrong things in that page , but i don't care much , i just want don't use the name i don't use now , sorry i am not a wiki person , i am not deep in it , i already use some time on this and try to fix this , i really hope u people can help to clear this , thx again Hohosiu101 (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

EditSafe

Look at EditSafe's contributions on American Pekin. I notified one admin, EdJohnston about this. What about ANI? --George Ho (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Yes, I had a look at this. I am a bit concerned that this could be a WP:CIR case. Perhaps the editor means well, but their actions are not helping. I left a message on their user talk, let's see whether they reply. If the behaviour continues, I guess we can go to ANI. But right now, let's wait for a while and see if they engage. Thank you so much for looking out for these articles . --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
With pleasure. --George Ho (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Advanced Bionics Notability

According to Wikipedia Guidelines, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline) Advanced Bionics is a notable subject worthy of it's own article. Information about the company is available in numerous secondary sources unrelated to the company, such as USA Today, extensive information from reliable sources like the FDA is available; Secondary sources such as the LA times (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/10/business/fi-advanced-bionics10) covered the topic; Websites already listed are independent of the company and hence provide the needed independent sources; and has significant coverage in reliable sources. (Already listed)

As for why it should be a separate page, please remember that subsidiaries often have their own articles (Delta Airlines and Delta private jets, El Al and Up, EADS and Airbus...) even when a parent company has it's own article too. Any Advanced Bionics has a higher market share than Med-El, making it all the more noteworthy. Plus AB implants are not marketed as Sonova but as AB, hence making a separate article all the more reasonable.

You did not seek consensus to complete the merger, neither did you bother to create a discussion. You merely copied text and created a redirect, in circumstances that clearly that do not warrant a merger. According to Wikipedia policy: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons_for_merger)

"Merging should be avoided if: 

   .....
   The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles"

It is clear you did not read the guidelines before deleting, and btw, hitting undo once is not an editwar. Reverting a reverted edit (what you did) is. When I first started the article it was first redirected because of spelling/grammar errors and told that the article would be great once improved. The Sonova talk page seeks a separate article for AB, you are and Jytdog are the only ones that thinks it shouldn't be it's own article. I have consensus on my side, CerealKillerYum agrees AB should have an article and requested so; but you claimed consensus was the reason for deleting in the first place, ironically going against consensus; only reason given being "Sorry, but subsidiaries are usually not notable enough for their own articles" despite that being very incorrect (see above note on subsidiaries) By the way, as much info was given as for AB as for Phonak, Unitron, hear the world...it would be a very long article in much need to being split. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page. Btw, please declare your conflict of interest. If you have been paid to edit, please declare that as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Again,like I said before, I have no conflicts of interest; still in secondary school. However, do you have any, perhaps do you work for a competitor like Cochlear of Med-el? They would benefit from a major competitor not having a Wikipedia article. And your reasons for deleting are still not valid if you read the fully meaning of "routine news coverage"--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion invite

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to the Wikipedia Kuala Lumpur Meetup 2

The 5th Wikipedia Malaysia Meetup will be held for the second time on Kuala Lumpur!

→ To talk about the past Wikimedia Conference 2017 in Germany, Creative Commons, Malay Wikipedia and the upcoming Wikipedia East, Southeast Asia & Pacific Conference 2018 in Indonesia.
→ Forming a Wikipedia Malaysia User Group, coordinating East Malaysia-related affairs and training newcomer Wikipedia editors.
→ And a lot more!

This meetup was initiated by Chongkian and the invitation was written and sent by QianCheng. For more information and updates, see the meetup page. If there is any enquires, feel free to discuss at the talk page. If you wish to opt-out of any future Malaysia meetup invitation, please remove your name here. (Delivered: 06:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC))

Carousell

Hi Lemongirl942, I'm just wondering if you've had a chance to review the Carousell edits as it's been 2 months since you rolled back the changes. The references are all present, it's really just an update of statistics and facts with no new content. If it's alright, can we just update the facts? Thanks! Munkythemonkey (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Lemongirl942,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 804 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Need sources?

I noticed that you're waiting on approval for access to JSTOR at the Wikipedia Library. JSTOR currently has a waitlist due to lack of available accounts. In the meantime, the Resource Exchange can help! We connect content creators with reliable sources. If you need a specific article or passage from a book that you don't have access to, drop by and leave a request. We're happy to help you access paywalled and print sources to the extent allowable by copyright law. Please let me know if you have any questions. ~ Rob13Talk 03:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Notifying you of this in case you might have some interest. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Special:Permalink/787497450#Cross-Strait conflict: PRC and ROC Closed

This is to inform you that the request for arbitration in which you were recently named as a party has been declined by the committee and closed. GoldenRing (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Lemongirl942, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

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

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

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

Your draft article, Draft:Gandhi Institute For Technological Advancement

Hello, Lemongirl942. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Gandhi Institute For Technological Advancement".

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. » Shadowowl Marcos Rodriguez | t | SPI | AIV | Sandbox | Helpdesk » 19:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Lemongirl942, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

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

Technology update:

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

General project update:

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

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

Your draft article, Draft:The Singapore Herald (Japanese newspaper)

Hello, Lemongirl942. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "The Singapore Herald".

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 07:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:K. Kanagalatha

Hello, Lemongirl942. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "K. Kanagalatha".

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Lemongirl942, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

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

Technology update:

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

General project update:

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

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

Johor Meetup 3

We will have a meetup end of this month in JB, as part of the city festival.
Check the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Meetup/Johor 3 and the official event page www.jbifc.co/workshops
Chongkian (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Lemongirl942, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

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

Technology update:

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

General project update:

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Lemongirl942. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Lemongirl942, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

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

Outreach and Invitations:

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

New Year New Page Review Drive

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

General project update:

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

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

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Lemongirl942, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

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

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

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

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

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

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

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Lemongirl942, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!
The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

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

New Year Backlog Drive results:

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

General project update:

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

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

A barnstar for you!

The Real Life Barnstar
I do hope you're well, LG. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Lemongirl942, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

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

Paid editing

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

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

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

News

  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Lemongirl942, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

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

Deletion tags

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

Backlog drive:

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

Editathons

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

Paid editing - new policy

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

Subject-specific notability guidelines

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

Not English

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

News

  • Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
  • The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Lemongirl942, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

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

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

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

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

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

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

Hello Lemongirl942, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

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

New technology, new rules
  • New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
  • Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
  • Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
Editathons
  • Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
The Signpost
  • The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

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

Barnstar

The Real Life Barnstar
I do hope you're well, LG. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Chinese people

Hello Lemongirl, I just wanted to notify you that I have left a comment on the talk page of Chinese people with my thoughts on the direction that the page should take. I noticed that this discussion you initiated is more than a year old, so I thought I would inform you of this in case you miss it. Sol Pacificus (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Past National Day Parade articles

Hi, I noted that the previous NDP articles has been userfy to your sandbox. May I know what is the reason for that? Thanks --Xaiver0510 (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I found the AFD and probably do a rewrite, probably just stubs. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)== A barnstar for you! ==

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Lemongirl942,

Backlog

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

Coordinator

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

This month's refresher course

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

Deletion tags

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

Paid editing

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

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Lemongirl942,

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

Getting the queue to 0

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

Coordinator

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

This month's refresher course

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

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

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

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

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

Community Wish list

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

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

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

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect autopatrol

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

Source Guide Discussion

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

This month's refresher course

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

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

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Lemongirl942,

Source Guide Discussion

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

Redirects

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

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

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

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

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

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

"BeritaSatu Medan and O Channel Medan" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect BeritaSatu Medan and O Channel Medan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 29#BeritaSatu Medan and O Channel Medan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ArdiPras95 (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Lemongirl942,

Your help can make a difference

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

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

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

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

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

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

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

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Lemongirl942,

A chart of the 2020 New Page Patrol Queue

Year in review

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

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

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

NPP Technical Achievement Award

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

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

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

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Lemongirl942,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

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 or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
  • On November 1, 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 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Lemongirl942,

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 804 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 852 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)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Lemongirl942,

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[a] 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.[b]

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: 11937 articles, as of 14:00, 10 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
  1. ^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
  2. ^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 24 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)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Lemongirl942,

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 Lemongirl942,

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)

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)

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Article patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
  • There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
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) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello Lemongirl942,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Lemongirl942,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lemongirl942/Archive_4&oldid=1190857179"