User talk:Tpdwkouaa/Archive 4

DYK for Liolaemus sarmientoi

On 9 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Liolaemus sarmientoi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Liolaemus sarmientoi is one of the two southernmost species of lizard in the world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Liolaemus sarmientoi. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Liolaemus sarmientoi), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wife of Alexander Lukashenko

Good day

Why did you revert change I did to include in the infobox the fact that Lukashenko's wife is estranged from him? They are married only in name, therefore effectively separated. It is an unusual situation but one that requires the fact that they are legally married to be qualified. Currently, if it only says they are married this misrepresents their relationship, she has lived in another town than him since the mid 1990s, does not see him and is reportedly forbidden from speaking to media.

The purpose of the marriage template is to succinctly state the basic facts about the marriage. This case is unusual which justifies using the template in an unusual fashion. Bear in mind that templates are made for ease of use, they are not strict rules about information to include in infoboxes. --Jabbi (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jabbi It's not typical to have details about how someones marriage is going in an infobox, and so I personally thought that an excess of detail is outside of the purpose of the template. Being estranged isn't that uncommon, even though the details of this estrangement are unique, and is typically not included in infoboxes. Strict rules really have nothing to do with it, but personally I consider anything not explicitly defined in the infobox fields as excessive. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TpdwkouaaI I disagree. Again, templates are for ease of use, they are not meant to limit information. I'll solve this another way. Rather than think whether this is the intended use for the template I suggest you evaluate if the information is succinct and accurate for the reader. In this instance, Lukashenko is not married in the conventional sense - they do not live together, and have not for over 30 years, and Lukashenko has had an extramarital child and is often seen escorted by beauty queens, etc. The parameter end is intended to indicate a divorce and can just as well be used for this purpose. --Jabbi (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JabbiI'll be honest, while I do stand by my opinion, I don't feel as strongly about it as you do about yours. (I don't mean that in a snide way, in case it comes off that way). Given that the page is protected, someone is going to be reviewing every edit that is done. If you want to, remake the edit in question, and I'll let some other reviewer cast the deciding vote, so to speak. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Beverly Gossage

On 1 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beverly Gossage, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that before she was elected to the Kansas Senate, Beverly Gossage worked as an elementary school teacher and an insurance agent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beverly Gossage. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Beverly Gossage), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability of this specific discord server is not established"

I saw this said on the Hetalia: Axis Powers edit you made; reverting the mention of the Discord server from the "reputation" area. I would argue that the Discord server has notability and is a better indicator of the show's reputation, if not more than the Twitter account that is mentioned in the same sentence. It is officially partnered with Discord & approved by Funimation.

As the show comes out on April 1st and it continues to grow, I would assume that an active official community for fans would be more representative of the show's reputation than a Twitter account that hasn't updated since 2015. AlfredHonda (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AlfredHonda: Why does the Discord server have notability? I can't find any Funimation sources or secondary sources referencing the server. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women's rights in North Korea and copyvio

I have removed the copyvio content and requested a revdel since it is foundational. I saw that you plan to rewrite, just letting you know that I took action since it is a blatant copyvio. Kind regards, Sennecaster (What now?) 02:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Clarence Lushbaugh

On 28 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Clarence Lushbaugh, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Clarence Lushbaugh claimed that God gave him permission to take Cecil Kelley's organs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Clarence Lushbaugh. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Clarence Lushbaugh), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,532 views (711.0 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sushmita Sen

Hi @Tpdwkouaa:, Why you revert last pending changes which is recently reviewed by you?(Fade258 (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Hello @Fade258:. The edit you are referring to was the removal of a citation needed tag regarding Sen's attendance at Air Force Golden Jubilee Institute. Since there is still no citation provided for that piece of information, there's no reason to remove that tag. Do you have a reason as to why it should be removed? /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tpdwkouaa, I ask that question to you because I had found small information in the sources which is presently, presented in this article see this. Thank you !(Fade258 (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Fade258: excellent find! I've added that source to the article and removed the citation needed tag. In the future, be sure to add a source before removing the citation needed tag. Thank you, /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tpdwkouaa You do not need to add beacuse that source is already present in the end of that paragraph of 1st sources.(Fade258 (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Fade258: I see, my bad, in that case confusion could've been avoided if that was noted in the edit summary. Thank you, /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see that paragraph carefully and check all the sources which are present there.(Fade258 (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Jeff Rense

Hey, why did you accept this revision? It goes against WP:BLPCAT, as multiple editors have pointed out in the page history. The article was protected for a reason. St Anselm (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm The specific clause at WP:BLPCAT is the following: "In particular, do not categorize biographies of living people under such contentious topics as racism, sexism, extremism, and the like, since these have the effect of labeling a person as a racist, sexist, or extremist". While I admit that this may be pedantic, my interpretation was that the category in question didn't specifically assign the person as antisemitic, since it's a topic category and not "Antisemites in the United States"; rather, his work, or activities pertaining to that ideology qualified the article for that category based on WP:OPINIONCAT: "Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic." A similar situation exists for the article David Icke, for example, who is listed in the category Antisemitism in England, because his activities pertain to that subject, regardless of his personal beliefs. I'll admit it's more appropriate to take a conservative stance on these guidelines in situations of BLP-related protections though, so mea culpa. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jameco Electronics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jameco Electronics, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jameco Electronics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RIP /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Clarence Lushbaugh

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Clarence Lushbaugh you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Larry Hockett -- Larry Hockett (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Hockett, thank you, that's great news! You'll have to bear with me during the process as it's my first time nominating an article. Looking forward to working with you. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! The process gets easier once you go through it a time or two. I've started listing some items to address on the review page. You'll see that a lot of the feedback is around two themes: the lead section needs to be fleshed out, and in certain places the chronology needs to be described more clearly. I am about to wrap up my own GA nomination on a similar topic at Charles Lester Leonard. It might help you to look at the lead there to get a sense of how to develop your lead. Usually the first paragraph lists the main things that give the subject notability, and the rest of the lead summarizes the other content from the body of the article. Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Alex Schaefer

On 3 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alex Schaefer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alex Schaefer has never burned down a bank, despite all the evidence suggesting otherwise? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alex Schaefer. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Alex Schaefer), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Murray edit revision

Can you show me specifically what was reverted and why? You mentioned that Wikipedia is "not censored," but how is that relevant?

Hello @136.49.67.19:, I assume you're referring to this edit, in which you removed properly referenced material, alleging that it was "falsehoods". Given that the information you removed was from sources including The Guardian, the SPLC, and the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, it seemed that in the absence of any other legitimate reason for removal (simply asserting that something is "false" is not sufficient) that this was an attempt to remove unflattering information from the page. If this assessment was incorrect, then that's my bad, but that doesn't change the fact that sourced material should not be redacted without sufficiently stated reason, and to do so with political material can raise suspicion. If you have any other questions, please reach out. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Antoinette Harrell

On 14 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Antoinette Harrell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite the United States outlawing slavery in 1865, historian Antoinette Harrell found examples of African-American families who remained enslaved through debt bondage as recently as the 1970s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Antoinette Harrell. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Antoinette Harrell), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Clarence Lushbaugh

The article Clarence Lushbaugh you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Clarence Lushbaugh for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Larry Hockett -- Larry Hockett (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lushbaugh GA

Good work on this entry! I finished the review but I overlooked one unsourced passage at the end of the third paragraph of the Los Alamos Human Tissue Analysis Program section. Could you add the source for that? I don't think it's worth undoing the GA pass, but it would be nice to make sure it's supported. Thanks for being responsive to feedback throughout the process. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Hockett Thank you so much for your work here! The article definitely looks a lot better than it did when I first submitted, so all of your feedback and help has been much appreciated. I believe I've taken care of the passage you were referring to as well, let me know if there was anything else. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

Hello Tpdwkouaa,

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. 04:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Tagging pages for deletion

Hello, Tpdwkouaa,

Just a reminder that every time you tag a page for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/MFD/etc.), you need to post a notice on the talk page of the page creator informing them that a page they created might be deleted and, most importantly, why it might be deleted. Regular editors do not have access to Deleted Contributions so without a notice, they might not even be aware that a page they created has been deleted and might continue to make similar mistakes on other articles and pages.

I recommend using Twinkle to tag pages, it's very easy and once you set up your Preferences to "Notify page creator", Twinkle will post these notices for you. It's very convenient. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, thank you for the notice. I do use twinkle, and have the "Notify page creator if possible" box checked by default. I just went and checked, and you're right that the user didn't get notifications for those three CSDs. Somewhat concerning. Even with the box checked, am I blanking on some extra step? At any rate I'll remember to double check the page creator's talk page in the future... /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

Corrosive RfA atmosphere
The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
Level of scrutiny
Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
Standards needed to pass keep rising
It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
Too few candidates
There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
"No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
Admin permissions and unbundling
There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
RfA should not be the only road to adminship
Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

Hello Tpdwkouaa,

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 803 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

Hello Tpdwkouaa,

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: 12239 articles, as of 12:00, 13 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

^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
^ 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) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

Hello Tpdwkouaa,

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) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP message

Hi Tpdwkouaa,

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) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Tpdwkouaa,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] t 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.

[a]

[b]