Jump to content

User talk:Rentier/Archive 1

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

Welcome!

Hello Rentier/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  SoothingR 14:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Some information

The nominator Xtremedood has actually removed lots of data from several articles claiming it does not say what is written in the source, when it does. Just like how he claimed "Muhammad Prophet and Statesman" does not state what I said it does. What do you propose I do? If I revert him do you think wikipedia will be on my side? I feel its basically censorship --Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you please let me know a few examples? If it is as clear-cut as in the case of Muhammad Prophet and Statesman, then I believe you can revert the changes. I will revert them as well. But make sure to observe WP:3RR or other restrictions, if applied. Rentier (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "When the tribe heard of this, they fled. Muhammad captured 500 of their camels from the raid, and distributed it between his fighters. He also kept a fifth of the spoils"

Neither the webcitation.org link nor Sealed Nectar p. 204 (I downloaded this version) seem to be related to Al Kudr Invasion. What am I missing? Rentier (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I gave wrong source from that page. It is: Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar, p. 147. (online) . On the page it has 147 and 204, i copied and pasted wrong.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I believe Xtremedood was within his right to remove the passage, because the source was not uniquely identified: it would be hard to locate the passage without knowing which edition of the book you were using (we should not have to trust webcitation.org). However, since the passage you want to cite is indeed in the book, all you have to do is to clearly indicate which edition of the book are you using. Since the reference was contested, I suggest making it super clear, like this:
Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri. "ALKUDR INVASION". The Sealed Nectar. p. 107. ISBN 5872528906. He stayed there for three days, took their 500 camels as booty and distributed them to the fighters after he had set aside the usual one-fifth
{{cite book|isbn=5872528906|title=The Sealed Nectar|author=[[Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri]]|page=107|chapter-url=https://books.google.pl/books?id=2q4KAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq="He+stayed+there+for+three+days,+took+their+500+camels+as+booty"|chapter=ALKUDR INVASION|quote=He stayed there for three days, took their 500 camels as booty and distributed them to the fighters after he had set aside the usual one-fifth}}
Rentier (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I have added back te removed data with reference. Lets see if he tries to remove it this time. Will you help if he does remove? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "Quotes" of primary sources removed claiming WP do not allow primary sources
I restored part of it. I am afraid the section "Other primary sources" featuring a long passage from Ibn Sa'd must go, because it constitutes original research. Rentier (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "Quotes" removed again
I did not check, but I suspect the removal of the passage starting with "To deceive the enemy .." can be restored after fixing the reference. I would be inclined to keep some of "primary sources" section except of the quote from Ibn Kathirs, which is OR. Rentier (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "Quotes" removed again
Same as above, Wikipedia should not quote a 14th century scholar without justification from other sources. I believe some of the section should stay, but quotes should not constitute close to half of the whole section. Better to just reference the sources. Rentier (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • "According to the Persian Muslim scholar Muḥammad ibn Khāvandshāh, the purpose of this raid was to plunder Abu Sufyan's caravan and that some companions of Muhammad stayed behind as if they didn't ,they would need to fight because they believed plunder was the objective and not war against the Quraysh"
It seems to me that the versions of Invasion of Waddan and Patrol of Buwat made by Xtremedood represent a pretty narrow point of view. But they are well sourced. On the other hand, your version of Patrol of Buwat was primarily based on the work of medieval scholars, which I doubt can be considered reliable secondary sources. Can you find better sources? Rentier (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I dont need to because it seems you already found loads (the ones you put on talk page). Thanks --Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Both invasion and patrol seem to be supported by sources. Which one is more common in the literature? That should be the basis of deciding which one to use in the article. Perhaps (also referred to as ....) should be added. Rentier (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@Misconceptions2: After some research, I am not sure if Patrol is justified at all. Let us see how Xtremedood responds. Rentier (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • User box removed:
The point of contention seems to be the level of personal involvement on the part of Muhammad. Without digging deeper, I could not justify your version. Can you make the attribution clearer or find new sources? Of course there was no need to remove the entire infobox. Rentier (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I have corrected mi mistake. Have you taken a long at the source. What do you think?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I added my comments above. --Rentier (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment

I have been accused of misattributing primary sources. can you look into it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expedition_of_Hamza_ibn_%27Abdul-Muttalib#Reply I admit the al-Waqidi source quote was an error on my part. But I do not think the "Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 95" source was a misattirbutation. What is your opinion. Is the quote from "Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 95" related to the caravan raids (Expedition of Hamza ibn 'Abdul-Muttalib is the FIRST caravan raid). Does it fit in that article? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The "Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 95" may not have been a misattribution, but it was original research. You need a reliable secondary source explicitly linking the quote to the event. Medieval texts hardly count as such. Remember that on Wikipedia you are not allowed to make even straightforward inferences that are not supported by secondary sources. --Rentier (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of primary sources

Article in question: Batn Rabigh Caravan Raid

On above article I quoted Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:57:74 . This primary source EXPLICITLY mentions Sa'd was the first to shoot an arrow for Islam,

The secondary sources in Batn Rabigh Caravan Raid also EXPLICITLY mentions Sa'd was the first to shoot an arrow for Islam.

I have been accused of violating WP:SYNTHESIS. What is your opinion, is this synthesis? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

To me, the quote appears to nicely illustrate the article. I do not see WP:SYNTH here, unless one interprets the rule very broadly. I suggest that you ask here for more opinions. --Rentier (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey

Bring back my article --Sagbortio (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Jon Everill

I have removed the PROD tag on Jon Everill. Once any editor has removed PROD, even the article creator, it cannot be restored, even if the removal was in bad faith. If you wish to further pursue deletion of that article, please use WP:Articles for deletion. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Safiel: No problem. I will nominate it for deletion. I am aware of policy, just the user deleted the "concern" parameter and not the entire PROD template. I was not sure if that counted as removal of the tag. Rentier (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

FRS: code & wikidata?

Hello Rentier, thanks for publishing your list of living fellows at User:Rentier/FRS, it is very useful.

I was wondering if you would be able to make any of the code available that generates it? It would be great to co-ordinate your work with some of the efforts of Magnus Manske with Mix and match which includes deceased and living fellows. For example, wikidata needs populating with data, especially the [1] (fellows of the royal society property) which directly references to the biographies on the website that you have also used.

I also noticed that User:Rentier/FRS contains a few False positives and false negatives with some ambiguous links as well, for example:

...etc

Duncan.Hull (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Duncan, thank you for your interest. I am glad to hear you found the list useful!
I will be happy to release the code. I will put it on GitHub and let you know.
The Mix & match tool looks interesting. I will look into it.
Please do not spend too much time identifying false positives/negatives, since it should be able possible to eliminate almost all of them automatically by cross-checking the list with the Fellows category (and/or the list on Mix & match!). I just didn’t focus on that yet, because the current list is good enough for my present purpose (to identify articles that need creation).
Rentier (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
@Duncan.Hull: You can find the code here. Sorry about the lack of comments / poor readability. When I wrote it, I did not expect anybody would see it! Rentier (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

List of expeditions of Muhammad

Looking at the history of this article, it seems that you were in support of the full version of the article. I have brought up this issue again. Talk:List of expeditions of Muhammad#Consensus version. Capitals00 (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Noticeboard notifications

If you report a user at WP:COIN, they must be notified, in order that they know and can respond. The procedure for doing so is listed in red text at the top of the page. - Bri (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I should have noticed that. Rentier (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Your Cleanup Project

Hi

I don't understand what you are doing at your cleanup project. Can you tell me? Plum3600 (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Plum3600: Hi, I am analysing the Wikipedia database dumps in an attempt to find various ways to improve the encyclopedia. As part of this effort, hopefully just a beginning, I identified ~150 issues caused by unclosed tags, such as this. WikiProject Check Wikipedia does something similar and more (on a much bigger scale), however my plans lead in a different direction. Rentier (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Rentier. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

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

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For the keyword list of unpatrolled articles. This is a far more important development than you perhaps realise. All we need to do now is get the Reviewers to use it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I was heading over here to give you kudos too. If you and Kudpung check my patrol logs, you'll see how quickly I was able to go through Catholic bishops stuck in the backlog. This is an area that I'm much more familiar with than most patrollers and they all tend to meet WP: N. Giving patrollers the ability to target articles they are familiar with is amazing, especially if they can target articles that are likely to be notable. You deserve much more than a barnstar for this! TonyBallioni (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Chris troutman, Kudpung, TonyBallioni Thank you for your kind words! Rentier (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:CheckUser

Don't post that kind of material. It violates policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: The policy makes an exception with regards to posting links to "public advertisements to recruit paid Wikipedia editors", which is why I did it, having been made aware of this exception by another editor a few days ago. But this is the crux of my question - is there a process to report and investigate abuses like this? The case I posted is one of several that I'm aware of. Rentier (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
At least for the present I don't accept that "exception", which was added out of process and has caused a tremendous amount of consternation and endless discussion that I don't have the patience to track. The answer to your question is you have no proof of socking, let alone conclusive proof. If you want to have a user sanctioned for undisclosed paid editing, you'd have to do it in a different forum, and regardless of what you think, I'd be very careful about what you post and what you link to, or you may find yourself in trouble, regardless of your intentions.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I see that the user in question has already been blocked as part of another investigation, so much for the lack of proof. It is confusing to me that you refer to a policy and refuse to accept a part of it in the next sentence. I do accept, however, that the exception is to be interpreted narrowly, for the time being. Rentier (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Rentier can you send me details regarding this case aswell. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Post to WP:COIN

I have removed your post to WP:COIN and suppressed it so that only oversighters have the ability to see it. I see the exception you are using but I think it completely contradicts the outing policy as it allows us to tie a Wikipedia ID to an offsite name. I have sent an email to the Oversight list explaining what I have done and why. I would appreciate it if you would not post that kind of information again until we get some kind of resolution to this, as it will be a vicious circle. You post it, I removed it and suppress it. ~ GB fan 20:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@GB fan: Thank you for your message. I have no problem with that, given that the accounts I had an issue with (and more) have been exposed in the SPI case. I appreciate the tension between the outing policy and the need to protect the encyclopedia from promotional content. It is my opinion that the outing policy was never meant to protect paid editors in this way. I will not post any more such links until this is clarified. Rentier (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
A couple of comments. I would have run the check based on the evidence you presented at the SPI without the links. Also, the accounts were not "exposed" as there's nothing in the SPI that outs anyone. They were blocked as being the same person. That's it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
It's good to know for the future that the in-wiki evidence would have been sufficient. I see what you mean. Rentier (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I would personally say however that posting was nonetheless appropriate, because these attacks on the principles of WP should be publicly available when it does not involve a named individual. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Rentier can you send me the links that you used? Interested in taking a look at the issue in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Based on comments I received at the mailing list I have reverted my suppression. I apologize for the removal and suppression, I was wrong. ~ GB fan 08:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Recognition for helping us sort NPP

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For your efforts to help us sort unreviewed pages (here, here, and here). This approach has been tried at similarly-backlogged AfC because getting subject matter experts to help with new articles is a great way to incentivize editing on thankless tasks in a targeted manner. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
A bit late, but I'd like to second this! DrStrauss talk 15:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Josephine Gillan

I have a message to say that you have reviewed this page. I cannot however see any change or comment. Can you tell me what this means?LawTech6 04:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@S.tollyfield: I reviewed it as part of the new pages patrol. Since the article has received a significant attention in the deletion discussion, I didn't have anything to add at the time. Rentier (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Rentier, 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)

By user - human update

Hi,

I've just reviewed the 60 articles in the new page queue by Rafayelmanukyan identified with your "most by user" page. Should I remove that user from the table or does a bot do it?

Thanks,

DrStrauss talk 12:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

DrStrauss, I have just updated the list. It's a semi-manual process at the moment, I have to run a script and copy/paste the output. Rentier (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! I've just reviewed another user in the table which are in a mass AfD. DrStrauss talk 22:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (John Steeds) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating John Steeds, Rentier!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice article. More inline citations are needed for the 'Research' section, please.

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, the entire 'Research' section is taken from the Royal Society profile page (it's attributed and the license allows it) with only few modifications to ensure NPOV. What do you think would be the best way to reference it? Thanks, Rentier (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Rentier. Thanks for getting back to me on this. I think there's two issues. Regarding citations, just repeating the references at the end of the first of the two paragraphs should do it. It was unclear to me whether all the content of that section was based on the two refs you gave, or just the second paragraph. It's no big deal if they're the same source - I do tend to repeat a ref after a long block of text.
The second issue (which admittedly I did not spot, though should have) is the use of the Royal Society's text almost verbatim. Whilst you clearly indicate this in the article, I can't actually see anything on the RS website which clarifies text content is available under a CC licence. Indeed, both the John Steed page and their RS homepage use a stylesheet stating content is copyright. I've tried to wade through their terms of use, but seem to be going round in circles. If you could identify the relevant page stating free use and link to that - or mention it on the Talk page - that might avoid future challenges. Does that sound reasonable? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I added a link to the terms & conditions page, and indicated the name of the relevant section. If I remember correctly, the provision was added a few years ago specifically to allow inclusion of the biographies in Wikipedia as a result of a "Wikipedian in Residence" project. Thanks for bringing it up, I hope to create quite a few of these articles and want to get it right. Rentier (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Good job

I just wanted to drop a quick note to say I've noticed the work you're doing at WP:COIN and it is appreciated. Hang on through the initial turbulence of learning an arcane rule system and I think you'll do fine. This is right at the bleeding edge of some really tough debates going on in our community over what our values are and how they should be expressed. If you haven't seen it before, I'd invite you to peruse my essay What's wrong with undisclosed paid editing and of course provide feedback if you feel inclined to so do. - Bri (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Bri. I have in fact read the essay before (though it didn't register to me that you were the author), and I think it's a very good overview of the subject. Rentier (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I very much agree with Bri on this. Good job. Sometimes, I'm just a bit concerned that you might be pushing too hard. It can be very easy to slip up and make a mistake and then get slapped down hard by an admin. Or you might just burn out. So much here depends on consensus, that sometimes it's better to let consensus develop. Or perhaps "it's better to be a step or two in front of the parade, rather than 15 yards." Or "slow and steady wins the race" Well, I've run out of cliches. So please keep up the good work. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Smallbones, though I'm not sure I understand your comment entirely :-) Admins have to obey the consensus like everybody else. If I unwittingly do anything that violates, or bends, the rules, I would love to hear about it. My experience here is relatively short, and I'm constantly learning. Sometimes I don't see any other way than to push - like in the latest COIN case, where the editor's accusations against me didn't leave me much choice. And if I hadn't pushed the oversight/outing issue, it would have created a terrible precedent and prevented almost everything I've done at COIN. That said, I won't be chasing undisclosed Upwork editors forever. I have a bigger fish to fry. Rentier (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Reason for creating the page " Tony tarz "

Please check here and suggest any edits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tony_Tarz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userfromus (talk • contribs) 14:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Userfromus: I fear that one video is not enough to establish Wikipedia:Notability. Rentier (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

VeggieTales Video Games

Hi - I see your point. I think I'll just copy it back to the parent page. Feel free to delete this page. I'd do it, but I'm not sure how... Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

Hi Ckruschke, the article will be reviewed by an administrator who will delete it (or not). Rentier (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Cool! Ckruschke (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

Candice Hutchings

Hi - I want to clarify on the note you posted on this article's talk. I'm not a paid editor, but I do have a personal relationship with a Canadian YouTube creator. I work in the field of talent management for YouTube creators, especially Canadians. However, I have no professional or paid relationship with Candice Hutchings. I simply know who this creator is because that's my field of expertise and I know or know of most of the larger Canadian YouTube talent. I think your comment implies some sort of nefarious relationship.Essabowser (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Essabowser: No worries, thank you for the explanation. Your involvement in the deletion discussion looked suspicious to me given your then-undisclosed relationship with another YouTuber and the fact that it was the only deletion discussion you participated in. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a huge problem with undisclosed paid editors who insert promotional content and often use multiple accounts. Glad to hear that you are not one of them. Rentier (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
Thank you for your outstanding work in creating the NPP Browser! I have already found it to be extremely helpful in prioritizing and focusing my new page reviewing. I hope this recognition helps to inspire you to continue to make improvements to the tool, and develop similar tools that substantially benefit the project. Thanks again! - MrX 18:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, MrX! That's exactly what one hopes to hear after building a tool like this. Rentier (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is the status of moving the browser based search to the toolserver (you had mentioned this in the past)? I'm working on the newsletter for next month, and think its probably better to wait to link to it when it is at the final destination. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thanks for the reminder! I will move it by the end of the week. Rentier (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Not a problem, and no rush. We're all volunteers here. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: No worries, the tool is now available at https://tools.wmflabs.org/nppbrowser/ Rentier (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a million for creating this! Can I suggest adding "entrepreneur" to the BLP filters? I'd also be interested in making it more sophisticated as it's similar to an idea I had ages ago about trying to detect UPE. There are several characteristics of the most prolific UPEs that I think make them stand out from >95% of other new articles. WP:BEANS means I don't want to say what they are and I wonder how it's possible to list them without making it obvious as to what we'd be looking for... drop me an email if you're interested and I'd also be interested in trying to maintain it. Cheers again SmartSE (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@SmartSE: Good catch, I added the "entrepreneur" filter. I wrote quite a bit of code beyond what is available to the public and used it to identify the two sockfarms I recently posted at WP:COIN. I just found another one, which is even larger. I will email you shortly. Rentier (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Awesome! I'm very glad to hear that it has already been so useful! Would either Iegonset or Experticka come up in that new group? I've already deleted Iegonset's article but both of them clearly know what they are doing. SmartSE (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Ritechar, Leeuwator and Bizwood are blatant socks along with Experticka... I will wait to do anything just in case this is already on your radar. SmartSE (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh and something similar was raised here a couple of years ago. Special:AbuseFilter/354 has more typical phrases that might be useful to add, but probably for a hidden version like the edit filter. You won't be able to see it, but I imagine that it would be ok for me to share it privately. SmartSE (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Woops. Got carried away and found a link to a master so posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar. Sorry about all the messages! SmartSE (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
@SmartSE: Experticka fits the pattern. I'm looking at over 100 accounts / articles at the moment. Thanks a lot for the link to the discussions! I knew a page like that had to exist somewhere. It may take me a while to get back to you, since I'm going to have a busy week, but I'm VERY interested in discussing this further, especially the machine learning approach. Rentier (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure no rush. I would advise though that once you have good evidence linking accounts together that you start an SPI to see what that produces rather than trying to track down every single article. Don't know whether you'd come across these guys either Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stoubora. SmartSE (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Smartse: I hear you, but what with the stale accounts? Of the accounts I have, 12 have been already blocked (alleged masters Anatha Gulati and Brilbluterin), 61 are non-stale, 74 are likely stale (last activity older than 90 days). I didn't see any accounts similar to "Stoubora", but I've been focused on accounts with less than 50 edits. Rentier (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm yeah good point. If we can't categorically link them to a master then we tend to ignore the accounts and deal with the articles through normal processes. So yes, I guess you do need to do the legwork on them if they are stale. Hopefully your tool should help us catch UPE within the 90 day window of CU and lead to more G5s. SmartSE (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your fine contributions at un-earthing conflict-of-interest cases/messes.Your contributions are heavily appreciated. Winged Blades Godric 17:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Rentier (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user jC6jAXNBCg

Excellent work. I rarely see such detail from an investigator. I popped in there by coincidence expecting to see just one name and lo and behold there are half a dozen familiar faces. There is also one other common trait among some of them which you have missed but I prefer not to mention it here because it's only circumstantial at best, but odd nevertheless. We'll see what the CU comes up with.

BTW, your NPP Browser is the best thing thing since sliced bread - certainly the most important tool for NPP since Page Curation was released. As I said, a link to it should be embedded on the New Pages Feed interface preferences.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Thanks, Kudpung. I think you can appreciate how much work goes into building a case like this. Email me the details if you want — I have an eye on several other accounts that I am not yet comfortable including in the investigation. Rentier (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI

Airplane Pete is involved in a dispute between video game record holders. There were a couple of discussions on ANI about it. Airplane Pete and Datagod appear to be on one side, with an IP editor on the other. The identities of the participants are easy to deduce. I doubt that they are related in any way to that sockpuppetry case. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

World's Lamest Critic, yes, I noticed that dispute. The accounts I listed in the renamed user's case, including yours, are involved in multiple unrelated discussions. All demonstrate a thorough understanding of Wikipedia and exhibit behavioural similarities that in my (and not only my) opinion warrant a CU check. That's all, I'm not making any assumptions and definitely not ruling out another SPI involving the accounts you mentioned. Rentier (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
If you add everyone who demonstrates a thorough understanding of Wikipedia and does some very common thing, you will end up with a long list. That said, no hard feelings and I look forward to having this resolved. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Alison James

Proposed deletion processes are not intended to clean up articles. The subject is arguably notable per WP:BARE; she played a recurring character in a soap opera. Please take this matter to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what made you think that I was using PROD as cleanup. I simply expected it to be an uncontroversial deletion because the subject appears to fail our notability guidelines by a wide margin (NACTOR is clear: "significant roles in multiple notable television shows"). I have no further interest in this article. Rentier (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Rentier, 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)

A goat for you!

Good work developing the new page reviewer browser! It looks great and will assuredly be helpful!

‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Bravo

The browser is brilliant! Just what I was looking for Gbawden (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user jC6jAXNBCg

In the absence of any new information I'm AGF and I have closed this SPI without prejudice to it being reopened. Thank you for all your hard work on it but as the CU did not connect the remaining accounts, there's no point in keeping it open. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for letting me know. Rentier (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

New SPI you might want to see

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex King-Zhang ☆ Bri (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

NPP Browser questions

Hi. So I am using NPP Browser daily and its showing me that it was updated at 5am this morning. But in the results it is still showing pages that have already been patrolled. Is there anyway of excluding patrolled pages? Gbawden (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Gbawden. I presume the pages were reviewed after 5am? The browser updates its data four times a day and articles reviewed between the updates will occasionally show up on the list. That's unavoidable at the moment. However, some of the changes I'm planning to do in the near future should greatly alleviate this issue, so stay tuned. Don't hesitate to let me know any other issues or suggestions for the tool. Thanks, Rentier (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
On a related note, would it be possible to search through all new articles (say 30 days) regardless of whether they've been reviewed? I'm fairly sure that there are plenty of UPE articles that slip through either due to reviews by socks or just because at first glance the articles look ok. SmartSE (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@SmartSE: The answer is a resounding yes! The plan is to create a set filters - reviewed/unreviewed, creation date, creator status, and much more. BTW, I haven't forgotten about the conversation we started earlier. I plan to go full speed ahead with the tool development starting mid-September. Rentier (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Including being able to sort by triggered filters might be good as well. You're aware of my love of the recent filter 867. Being able to combine it with the browser would be quite nice. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Excellent! Looking forward to the further improvements and let me know if I can be of any help. SmartSE (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

'Clean' new pages

Do you know if there is a list, or a routine to make one, for pages created by new users and posted in only 1 to 5 edits, and such as, for example Aimee Challenor ? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Thanks to Tony we now have the edit filter #867, but it only works for articles created in one big edit. It did catch the article you mention. As far as I know, there is no way to identify articles created over a number smaller edits, like these. It is one of the things I want to do in the near future. Rentier (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

NPP Browser Column "Edits"

Hey, are you sure that that column returning "edits" is "edits". It seems to be more like Pageviews: I am seeing pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vikki_RPM&action=history say that they have thousands of edits (which clearly is not the case). Cheers, Sadads (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Or is that "User edits"? I would recommend adding a pageviews column nevertheless, that would be super useful for sorting and priortization. Sadads (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, other unsolicitied feedback: I am noticing that a lot of articles that were previously redirects, are being represented as started by the folks who created the redirect, rather than as Special:NewPagesFeed does, which is skip the redirect edit for the first editor to create non-redirect content (which is also how the patrolling infrastructured flags edits as unpatrolled). Don't know what the technical endpoint is for fixing that, but it must be available: otherwise wouldn't be used on the other New Page Patrolling functions. Sadads (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Sadads: Thank you for the helpful feedback. The "edits" column shows the edit count of the creator. I agree that displaying the creator of the redirect rather than the user who expanded the redirect is a bug, but that's what the pagetriagelist API endpoint returns. The next version of the tool will use multiple sources to compile information about the article - and yes, I am planning to include the pageviews. Rentier (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Something I found on Commons for you!

The lamp trophy
I was searching for an appropriate file on Commons to give you for your excellent work, and I stumbled upon this lamp and trophy in one! I think you deserve it for the brilliant work and ideas you have had since becoming active again on Wikipedia. You're one of the best new editors we have, and I just want to make sure you know that you are appreciated :) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

NPP Browser

Thank you again for all your hard work. It has been my main source for speedy deletion noms since I started doing them using Twinkle. In August alone, 183, mostly G11s. See User:Edwardx/CSD_log. My main area for content creation is business and businesspeople, so that is what I have been focusing on for deletions, especially as businesspeople and companies is probably our biggest problem in COI and paid editing. Searching for "business", "entrepreneur", "executive", etc, within NPP Browser has turned up plenty. Edwardx (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Edwardx, glad to hear you are making a good use of it. I think you will like some of the upcoming changes. If you have any suggestions for making the tool even more effective, let me know! Rentier (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

scope of NPP Browser

I may have become confused about it, but am I correct that this includes only material not yet reviewed? I note that when I as an admin edit an article, it is supposed to be automatically marked reviewed, but several have remained on the list after that. How far back does it go? And what does the people icon in front of a title mean? DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@DGG: It is supposed to only include unreviewed articles, but the database is updated four times a day, so reviewed articles may stay on the list for up to 6 hours. Barring the delay, it should contain the same articles as the NewPagesFeed. The icon indicates articles created by non-autoconfirmed users, which should be equivalent to the "created by new editors" filter in the NewPagesFeed. I have plans to include all articles created in the last 90 days and add detailed filtering options. Any suggestions are welcome. Rentier (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
perhaps you might find a place to put this information. perhaps WP:New page browser, or even a subpage of you user talk, with cross references. What you are doing is so importnatthat it needs fuller presentation. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's an excellent suggestion. Rentier (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Rentier, 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)

LifeSource Water Systems

Hi Rentier, I'm being paid by LifeSource Water Systems to help improve their article. The author of the page, Robadamsla, hadn't disclosed his affiliation with the company, so you rightfully added the UDP template to the page. I spoke with him and had him disclose it on the article's talk page, and I also disclosed my own relationship there as well. Would you consider removing the UDP template from the page now? No other paid editors have worked on the article. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 09:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pikamander2, thank you for making the disclosure. I have removed the tag from the article. Regards, Rentier (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

NPR Bronze Award

The New Page Reviewer's Bronze Award
For reviewing over 1,000 articles in the past year, it is my pleasure to award you the NPR Bronze Award. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Grant you might be interested in

I invoked your name over at the talk page of meta:Grants:Project/Sumit/Automatic suggestion of topics to drafts. You might be interested in it or weighing in with thoughts since it seems connected with some of the work at the NPP browser. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

a few suggestios for your NPP broawer.

They are very promosing, and they dont need much work to be done, as most of them is already available here. The ideas that ive got in my brain, if they come to browser, then it would be our flagship. People will try to use it. I think we should talk about this in detail. Also, my walrus says hi to you. See you arund. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 23:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Sure, you can post them here or send me an email. Best, Rentier (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Technical analysis softwares

Dear Rentier, I would like to understand the Wikipedia logic behind the recent modifications on the ProRealTime page in the scope of the Technical analysis software category.

Further to Bri's modifications, I have seen many examples of :

I have a few questions for you :

  • What do you think of the state of these articles ?
  • Does it mean most of the content in the Technical Analysis Software articles should be removed ?
  • Is there any referent Wikipedia moderator who supervises the articles in that section ?

As a passionated person about Technical Analysis Software, I am willing to help amend the Wikipedia content if needed. --Daxtrader (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Daxtrader, the simple answer is that ProRealTime has received the attention that the other articles have not. It is very clear that many (perhaps most or all) of the technical analysis software articles are primarily means of promotion for the products, which is inappropriate. Yes, I think that a large part of the content is promotional and/or unreliable and/or unencyclopedic and therefore should be removed. No specific editor or body oversees Wikipedia articles. The decisions are generally made according to consensus, which tends to be reflected in our guidelines, but can go in any direction depending on who participates in a particular discussion. I will ask Bri for a comment as he is more qualified to reply to your specific points. Rentier (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This looks like it could be treated as a three part question. One, were the specific criteria applied at ProRealTime and detailed above consistent with past article cleanups? Two, were they correct and in line with consensus? Three, are other articles now eligible for the same cleanups? My answers to all three are "yes" but obviously is biased because I made them myself. However I think you'll see that all or nearly all of the cleanups applied are detailed at the essay WP:Identifying PR, which is an emerging consensus-based work that summarizes diverse guidelines, policies and unwritten rules. The essay has multiple authors at this time, many of whom are extremely senior and experienced here. If you want some articles to compare these cleanups to, as a sort of baseline, here are some suggestions.
Obviously the deleted articles can't be directly viewed by those of us w/o admin permissions, but the deletion debates give a clue about what was wrong with them.
There is another potential question here, unasked but implied: "Can I start making cleanups at other articles"? Within the constraints of the usual COI, which you should of course disclose if you have one, the answer is "of course" which is codified as WP:SOFIXIT. Please be aware that Technical analysis software was so messed up that the best solution was to basically erase it and start over (by merging) and many people are watching this area closely due to ongoing shenanigans both on- and off-wiki – especially from people with skin in the binary options game (see Skin in the game (phrase) if you're unfamiliar with this usage). See the talkpage of either of the first two examples, if you don't see the "shenanigans" problem right away. I'll just summarize by saying that I've rarely seen any article that touches on financial markets or companies that hasn't had some kind of COI editing, sometimes blatant, sometimes subtle. @Smallbones: may have more to say about this.
Hope this helps and I'll watch here to see if there are followup questions. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll refrain from giving my general opinion on financial markets articles, but in the areas of binary options, retail forex, and TA software, I've rarely seen an article better than financial astrology. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I would also draw the reader's attention to Special:Contributions/Jim Greene for a good example of what happens to a typical attempt to rehabilitate a bad article on the basis of other bad articles. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Rentier, 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)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Rentier:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – —usernamekiran(talk) 21:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Autopatrolled

Hi Rentier, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, TonyBallioni! --Rentier (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Please check this article

Hi. Please check Damian Keyes. Should it have any kind of notice? The guy asked me to revert obvious vandalism and update the text. I changed the text and among other tags (orphaned article, citations) accidentally removed COI tag that said that the tone of the article was promotional. The tone of the article after edits is not promotional (not from my understanding), but I would like to check with you. Note that I did all the edits to the article only after clearly declaring COI. Thank you in advance. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Bbarmadillo. I think the article looks pretty good, no templates needed. I have adjusted the wording a bit. Thank you for following the disclosure requirements. Rentier (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Source added

Hi Rentier, I added a source to the Mehmed Cemil Bey article. 77.166.30.3 (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Perfect. I removed the "unreferenced" template. Rentier (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Submitting new article with COI

Hi, I need your advice. Please take a look at the article Joe Ikhinwin. Some time ago we had a discussion with the User:Seraphimblade and he suggested that all new COI articles should pass the AfC process. I would like to know if I did everything right or not? Did I place the COI tag at the correct place? Sandbox articles don't have Talk pages so I placed it on top. I also added the information on the article at my user page. Is that it? Thank you in advance. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bbarmadillo: Yes, going through the AfC process with paid articles is strongly recommended. The tag should go on the talk page. In the future, you can create a talk page for your sandbox at User talk:Bbarmadillo/sandbox and move it to draft along with the article. Other than that, you did everything perfectly, well done. Rentier (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Rentier: Thanks! -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hey thanks for reviewing like half of all the new pages I've even made in about a minute. Have a kitten, feel the purr love.

Vami_IV✠ 22:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Vami IV: Not a problem. Lack of issues made them easy to review! Rentier (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Stub sorting

Hello Rentier,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks!-- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

NewHive Deletion

Hi, I modelled the NewHive page on the page for "Ello (social network)". I most certainly am not working for NewHive so I was wondering what exactly I did wrong on it compared to the pages of other social media sites? (Sorry if I am a bit backwards with Wikipedia protocol)Amanniste (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Amanniste: I have replied on the article's talk page. Thanks, Rentier (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

NPP Browser ORES integration

Evad37 has integrated ORES article quality assessment into his new rater tool, which I have found to be pretty accurate and incredibly useful. I am wondering if ORES could be integrated into the NPP Browser? If new articles could be assessed by ORES as part of a periodic database update, we could then search by assessed quality. This would help in identifying problematic articles, as well as identifying high-quality submissions that can be funneled through towards DYK. EDIT: there are two criteria that ORES can generate that can help us: the "draftquality" attempts to identify CSD candidates (I don't need to explain why this would be useful), and the "wp10" assesses the article by quality. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: I agree that this would be very helpful -- in fact, I have been already working on it. For better or worse, I have bundled the change with a major overhaul of the NPPBrowser, so I can only release it when the other tasks are done. Rentier (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Awesome. Thank you for your hard work developing this tool, it has been a huge help to all of us at NPP. The Technical Barnstar is awarded to Rentier for developing the NPP Browser. Awesome work my friend! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC) — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

GreenIntelli Deletion

Hello Rentie, you tagged the GreenIntelli article to be deleted because it didnt clearly state why it was important enough. GreenIntelli is a sustainability reporting company with customers worldwide. I would consider that to be a valid reason to be included in an encyclopedia. The article was based on that of thinkstep and cr360 which are similar companies that do have their own articles. What should be added or adjusted to the article to make it important enough? Tim (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tim: I would not consider that a claim of significance. The statement that it has customers "worldwide" is vague and doesn't tell anything about the size, let alone significance of the company. I also didn't find significant coverage of the company of secondary sources, which is usually required to establish notability (see WP:ORG). Rentier (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Interaction Timeline alpha demo is ready for testing

Hello,

The Interaction Timeline alpha version is ready for testing. The Anti-Harassment Tools team appreciates you spending a few minutes to try out the tool and let us know if there is value in displaying the interactions in a vertical timeline instead of the approach used with the existing interaction analysis tools.

Also we interested in learning about which additional functionality or information we should prioritize developing.

Comments can be left on the discussion page here or on meta. Or you can share your ideas by email.

Thank you,

For the Anti-Harassment Tools Team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

CAEplex Deletion

Hi Rentier. I inspired my CAEplex article in the CONSELF entry, as they are very alike pieces of software. Acutally, the original CAEplex article had more information but someone deleted a lot of sections because he said that they were "self promotion" whilst I think those sections contained just technical data. Can you give me some insights about what the CAEplex entry is missing, let's say with respect to CONSELF or SimScale to avoid deletion? Kuroshivo (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kuroshivo: I don't see CAEplex meeting any of the criteria listed on Wikipedia:Notability_(software)#Inclusion. CONSELF appears to have received quite a bit of independent coverage in secondary sources. Rentier (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you give one more week until I gather more references? Do people at LinkedIn say CAEplex is better than XXX count? Kuroshivo (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Kuroshivo: A LinkedIn community post wouldn't be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. I went ahead and moved the article to draftspace. It is now accessible at Draft:CAEplex. What this means is that it is no longer proposed for deletion, and you can spend as much time as you wish improving it and looking for sources. Once ready, you can nominate it for review by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. I hope this works for you - you are free to revert the move, but I believe it is unlikely that the article would have survived a deletion discussion at this time. Rentier (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rentier/Archive_1&oldid=1044317348"