Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Changes to reviewer instructions

Whether an AFC page that was vandalism could be tagged for speedy deletion was brought up at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD apply for WP:AfC? I then reviewed the instructions and see that they are asking that vandalism, attack pages and copyright violations simply be blanked and left to be archived. Especially with respect to attack pages and copyright violations, they should be immediately tagged for speedy deletion. We remove these as quickly as possible and archiving them exposes Wikipedia to potential legal liability. (This is all the more true of attack pages on living persons.) I have accordingly modified the instructions.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The reviewer script could be changed to add the CSD tag as well. The only important thing is that the person who made the submission be told why it was deleted/declined. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

{{afc cleared}} is defacto a CSD since it is adding the pages to CAT:CSD. mabdul 21:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Only if you explicitly transclude it as {{afc cleared|csd}}. Or does the script do that automatically? Someguy1221 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, uhm... right. I will add an extra checkbox for the next release, noted at the development page here. mabdul 23:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I would have boldly fixed the script in conjunction except that I am not familiar with it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a head-up: I have developed a new option and the new version is out since yesterday! Regards, mabdul 15:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this advertising/puffery? Or not?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chargemaster

as a new reviewer, I don't have enough experience to be sure.
I would lean towards declining this on the grounds that:

it has very little content;
it is a new company presently limited to the UK;
what content there is leans toward self-advertising rather than 'hard', technical information;
5/7 references are from the company itself and one newspaper article barely mentions them.

on the other hand this is a new technology which is going to grow, and
the remaining newspaper reference (guardian) clearly implies that this company will play an important role in the expansion of the use of electrice vehicles.

Could someone who has reviewed more than a dozen or so pages (like me) take a quick look and give me their opinion, so that next time I will be better prepared to decide on my own? Thanks! David FLXD (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see a lot of puffery / peacock words. Your concerns about notability not being established by the sources present seem valid to me. The Guardian is one good source, but I would say that passing mention in another source is not enough to cover general notability. You could point the author to WP:CORPDEPTH, which discusses how one independent source is not enough to establish notability, and neither is trivial coverage. That said, I am also relatively new here, so please take my advice with a grain or two of salt. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It's easy to make your company/software/band/etc. sound like the next big thing. But WP:N only cares about the current big thing.

Articles on companies are probably the most common submission and 99% are not notable and self-promotional. So my tip is to decline them unless you see a compelling reason not to, i.e. lots of good sources. It's barely worth reading the article – just look at the references.

Also make a note of who wrote the submission. If the account name is the same as the company's name (or the company's founder's, etc.) that's a big red flag and you should inform them of the conflict of interest policy. joe•roe^t•c 08:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

New bot

I requested a new bot, feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Legobot 13. Regards, mabdul 15:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabdul (talk • contribs) 15:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Submissions page

I was on the submissions page and was unable to see any links to the submissions waiting for review. This seems to have been from more pairs of open braces ({{) than closed braces (}}). I fixed that by adding a pair of closed braces to the end of the line. Now the link shows up, but so does a pair of closed braces. I cannot seem to remove those without the initial problem recurring. Could someone please take a look and see what I'm missing? --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've removed the surplus braces without breaking anything, but if I screwed up without realizing it, please revert me. Huon (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Having trouble moving this sandbox to AfC

User:Rotaik/sandbox

I have checked both mainspace and AfC for title Aung Aung Taik, nothing.
Yet it won't move. The topic is certainly a notable artist, work needed on sources and formatting. David_FLXD (Talk) 19:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"A page of that name already exists ..." – See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aung Aung Taik. -- KTC (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm that's where I looked. Put it down to a simultaneous editing conflict? Most likely, I guess. David_FLXD (Talk) 20:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Helper script helps

Bravo on the updates to the AFC Helper script. I really like the 'Clean the submission' function! -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm planing to add more functions which are already in advisor.js and wikied; but this has to wait until I a) have finished some more important stuff and b) improved the actual functions and c) I have rewritten some of the functions. Feel free to provide diffs or improvement ideas at WP:AFCH/DEV. mabdul 12:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Yogscast

Just one to keep an eye on: it seems to have attracted the attention of a number of IP editors, some serious, some vandals. I think the subject might just scrape by WP:WEB, but the submission's in no state to be accepted right now. joe•roe^t•c 08:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for upload/January 2015#Barack Obama and Google+

Could someone handle this request? I don't have the necessary software to convert the mp4 file to ogv. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 08:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

AfC script help

It seems when I decline an AfC submission, I'm getting this error message.

Unable to locate AFC submission template, aborting...

I removed the previous script from common.js page and also bypassed my cache. -- Luke (Talk) 14:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this happening on all subpages or just one? For me it worked on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hendon & Finchley Times. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 14:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe since there is no {{AFC submission}} template on the subpage, it's unable to load? -- Luke (Talk) 14:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The script can't decline a submission, if {{AFC submission}} isn't on the page. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 14:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It also doesn't accept if it is missing a few "|"s. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

@Kevin – We are bugfixing that and it should be patched ASAP.
@Luke – Try the script on a different page. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 23:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Submission deletion

I know there has been quite a bit of discussion recently regarding when submissions can be deleted. Are submissions which authors have completely blanked deleted? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 16:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, delete it as the author blanking it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Indexed

I've noticed that articles for creation show up on Google. As these are at times BLP violations, at other times copyvio or promotion, is there any way we can get these automatically noindexed? Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

mmmh, good catch. We can easily add __noindex__ to the submission templates. This would need a template purge then and creating a high server load for a short time, so we should do that after the replication lags are resolved. mabdul 16:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I was thinking, that we could add it to the templates. Great! Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering it's at nearly 9 hours and increasing, that may take a while... KTC (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Mmmh, strange {{AFC submission}} already includes the noindex code. Anybody an idea? Do we have to add it to the subpages like {{AFC submission/declined}}? Earwig? mabdul 13:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand – they shouldn't be indexed. It's possible that the articles for creation showing up are missing an {{AFC submission}} tag, as those are occasionally removed by the newbies. Can you confirm that Google is indexing an AfC page with {{AFC submission}}? — The Earwig ^(talk) 21:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding "Redirect-Class AFC articles"

These are tabulated in our monthly AfCs requests. At what point can the approved or listed redirect class tags be removed? Would this not help shrink our list totals? Why couldn't editors simply add the redirects rather than say "Yep, it's a redirect. Tag!"??? — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do you mean created redirects or redirect submissions? --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 03:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Submissions like this, which are listed here. — WylieCoyote (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is consensus, that redirects shouldn't be placed in the daily categories, than this can be done without removing the tags, by modifying the project tag template. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 19:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Simple solution, place redirects into a sub-category of that date. KTC (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want to change this. The reason we have that banner is to mark pages that went through AfC. Besides, that specific banner was added using our handy-dandy script, so it could be changed not to add a talk page to redirects if there is consensus, but I like KTC's idea better. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 20:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wry smile for the day

What are the odds that the article this heading was clipped from, dealt with a notable subject?

"Other Career Paths Almost Taken"

David_FLXD (Talk) 21:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC) (with tears in my eyes)

/me pulls out calculator. If you subtract the number of letters in the sentence with the notability percentage divided by the aggregate count of AfC submissions and multiply by zero you get...

0%

More laughs not provided by Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 23:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC), no rights reserved.

What do we do with sandbox submissions?

What do we do if a user has submitted their sandbox as an AfC? (And it looks like the submission was meant to be in earnest?
If user has submitted their sandbox with the same AfC as one which has already (recently) been created?
If use has submitted sandbox as AfC (and it looks like they didn't mean it / are not really ready / maybe just testing?)

David_FLXD (Talk) 19:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Move it, remove the AfC template from the sandbox, remove the template. I hope the helps! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks that's clear! David_FLXD (Talk) 05:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"If user has submitted their sandbox with the same AfC as one which has already (recently) been created?" – then please check if it was a copy and paste move and tag it with {{db-histmerge}}. (G6 – history merge is also in Twinkle's CSD tab) mabdul 08:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a similar case: User:Babylonbabylon/Alon Carmeli and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alon Carmeli. Four days between them. This probably also needs your db-historymerge? How do I use it – ie which article do I tag with it and then what? David_FLXD (Talk) 12:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have corrected the link of the template: I have done it: for the future: place {{Histmerge|User:Babylonbabylon/Alon_Carmeli}} at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alon Carmeli. Regards, mabdul 15:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I personally think it should be made more clearer for those who wish to list new articles as AfCs to be forced to move them from the sandboxes, via a pop-up message box or something. We aren't babysitters. On a similar line, I've seen two attempted articles today submitted as sandboxes when they've already failed inspection this year, by the same editors, rather than the articles re-submitted. — WylieCoyote (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Really: please overthink your comment twice: AFC is a project for newbees and IP editors: these people might not have the possibility to move pages (not (auto-)confirmed) or they simply don't know where the link is! Moreover keep in mind: everybody who is starting a submission in it's sandbox simply doesn't know that there is a article wizard – that's the reason why we placed the submit button on {{user sandbox}}. mabdul 12:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Overthinking, and feel that once they hit submit, it should move from their sandbox into AfC, unless they're not autoconned. How's that? This is why I was hesitant to join AfC because: a) it's difficult finding articles that haven't already been looked at (if you have a better link to find them, let me know), and b) the onus for us to transfer new subs from someone's sandbox. I spend 1/4 of Wiki day fixing people's cites and now this? — WylieCoyote (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If someone has written a draft article in their sandbox and they want to submit it to AfC for review, I normally advise them to add subst:submit at the top of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering the vast majority of new AfCs are declined or suggested to be fixed for reasons that new editors don't initially understand, and also that some aren't autoconned, I'll let our "assisted move" slide. But I don't think I'll do the move myself and stick to approval/declining. Thanks to those who replied. — WylieCoyote (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this discussion is a bit obsolete: I will add an 'auto move option' for the AFCH if I have time. mabdul 07:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

AFC Helper Script is now a gadget!

Per Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals#AFC Helper Script. Congratulations and thanks to all the devs and users who helped make such a great tool for AfC reviewers! avs5221^{(talk|contrib)} 14:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance but what is the difference? (Seriously, I don't know, and would like to) David_FLXD (Talk) 11:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The gadget is the same script, it is only easier installed and de-installed by the user/reviewer. Please keep in mind: if you install both then you will have two 'review' links/buttons. Moreover I don't guarantee that the script still works as expected if you install both. mabdul 09:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The 'mark as reviewing' function on the new helper script...

Hi there!

When you're using the 'mark as reviewing' function with the updated helper script (which is ace, by the way), is there any way of stopping it from leaving a comment at that stage? I've not usually got anything to say at this point in the process, so I've been leaving it blank but that results in a comment saying 'comment|undefined'. I don't think it's a big issue at all – just thought that it might look a bit confusing perhaps to new contributors...

Thanks!

Loriski (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, already reported and even fixed in my beta script; will be 'pushed' within the next few days. If you can't wait so long (and aren't active at AFC/R) then you can use it. Instructions are available at WP:AFCH. mabdul 15:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Mabdul! Loriski (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Conneced contributor declarations

Hiya folks. Would it be helpful to add some instructions and process for submissions by editors with a COI? For example, maybe a checkbox in the Article Wizard where the submitter can delcare they are "personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article". This could then follow through to the helper script: to add a notice to the draft, and if accepted, to auto add the {{Connected contributor multi}} template to the talk page. Just an idea... -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 22:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting one. At the end I had to tag all pages about (new) bands and CEOs and ORGs/Corps... But just for the case that we get a consensus for that, I will do it in a 'neat way' (I thought of a separated checkbox which will create a list of users who can checked, but not have used AFCH). mabdul 22:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Then we can automatically decline them. joe•roe^t•c 07:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There are examples which can be safely accepted but the 'submitter' has a clearly COI – so the tagging is a good idea, but not for the decline stuff! What's the need of an additional template which doesn't explain and helps the user? mabdul 09:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

...ummmmm, well, the idea of automatically declining because the submitter has declared their connection is not something that matches with the goals of this project. So lets assume your comment was intended to highlight an area of concern: that reviewers will need instructions about how to deal with COI issues within AFC. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 12:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Please show me the policy which prohibits the editing of articles with COI. It is (of course) not welcomed, but it is not forbidden and I don't see any problem to accept an article which is well written and correctly sourced. mabdul 22:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There isn't a policy, of course. I was expressing an opinion, not making a serious suggestion.

I don't have any concerns about how to deal with COIs in AfC – if I spot one, I will remind the user that they are "strongly discouraged" from editing on that topic and look at the submission very carefully. I can't think of a single instance of a good submission where the submitter had an obvious COI, and that makes me wonder if the current policy is indeed in line with the goals of this project. joe•roe^t•c 07:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oakley77‎

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Oakley77

To summarize, there is a proposal to topic ban the above editor from AfC for 3 months at the above page. --Rs chen 7754 06:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Request about Wikipedia talk:Article wizard

Would it be possible for Wikipedia talk:Article wizard to be redirected to this page? All it seems to do is cause discussion that most likely should be here. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 00:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this page should be for review tasks only. That seem to be an editors help page. :- ) Don 00:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My attempt to merge these two pages in October '11 was shut down, see Wikipedia talk:Article wizard/Archive 2#Propose merge of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation and this page and one of these archives! mabdul 07:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Review standard

Following on from the above topic, along with a long line of complaints, queries and what not in multiple places like AN(I) and mailing list, just what should the standard of acceptance be? Just where on the line of WP:CSD to WP:GA should it be drawn? (Standard are too low but wait standard are too high) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTC (talk • contribs) 17:59, July 7, 2012‎

I too was thinking this needs to be addressed, but everyone has a different opinion. For me, there are certain issues that will stop me from accepting – but if those issues are easily addressed, I don't see the problem in fixing it myself. The guidelines for reviewing are fairly simple, and I think the problem with newer editors is that they are not following them, or that they are not familiar enough with sourcing guidelines. Like above, Facebook and IMDB sources are big no-nos. I don't they think they need to be anywhere near GA quality, but they should at least stick to the basic guidelines and policies, neutral in tone, reliable sources, and extra care should be taken, as always, with BLPs. Formatting issues though, I have a problem with seeing a completely unwikified article be created and then just left. In the guidelines it suggests tagging it, but there are already thousands and thousands of articles needing wikifying and clean ups, so there's a good chance the article will not be cleaned up for years, if ever. Should we address that problem? I don't know. OohBunnies! (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've said before that I think our standard should be whether the article would survive a typical, fair AFD discussion. This is a higher standard than CSD but much lower than GA. Any higher and you would be declining submissions that could survive (necessary improvements can be made after accepting; no reason to decline because of it); any lower and you would be accepting submissions that will probably be deleted anyway. One of the problems with this project is that we have no mechanism in place to double-check reviews. If we use AFD as a standard, then each review is essentially an AFD with one !vote. Checks occur when a reviewer is obviously doing something misguided, like above, but sometimes a perfectly decent reviewer will poorly review a submission by misreading a source, thus declining a fine article, and no one will notice. Unfortunately, putting such a system in place would be nearly impossible with the constant flood of new submissions and the lack of reviewers, so that's more wishful thinking. I do believe our standards tend to the higher end. The ANI post linked above seems like an exceptional case; something that very rarely happens, and I don't think it can be used as an indication of trends. Checking to see whether the submissions are duplicates of things already deleted in other wikis seems like a bit much when we have to work quickly. While I don't have a problem with relatively high standards, I have a problem with reviewers misapplying them and declining articles that could pass AFD with minimal work (as OohBunnies! says above). — The Earwig ^(talk) 18:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with on both counts: with the simply would-pass-AfD standard and the problem of oversight. We are all working mostly in isolation. Sometimes we bring issues here to discuss, sometimes we happen to spot major problems . But I don't know if in general I'm more or less strict that other reviewers. Sometimes I find articles other people have declined and think that I wouldn't have; but I don't know if people are looking at my reviews and thinking I shouldn't have declined, or whether I'm misusing a particular decline reason, or I'm being biased in a particular area. I can see how if our standards diverge too widely it could make the entire process seem arbitrary to people submitting articles.

Perhaps we could set up a formal peer review process for reviewers? Assuming the list of participants is up to date (or maybe people should specifically opt-in), we could periodically pick someone, invite everyone else to review their reviews, and offer feedback. I should stress the purpose wouldn't be just to criticise whoever's in the hotspot, but we'd all get a better sense of how others' review and hopefully highlight discrepancies, areas of common misunderstanding, etc. joe•roe^t•c 09:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The big major problem is: the users (who have a too high standard) mostly don't watch this talk page nor do they read carefully the instructions simply because the are new users/reviewers. mabdul 17:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

My major problem when reviewing is that sometimes, many times, I don't know if the source is reliable or not. I know there is a listing somewhere, but it would be really cool if we had some kind of database to query. I'm hesitant to review many articles with sources other than the New York Times, so as not to get chastised. And, I don't have a lot of time to investigate if a particular cite is legitimate, or even if the site is, the article may be from some reader blog. :- ) Don 19:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Better guidance for submissions declined on inadequate sourcing grounds

Coming upon the thread above, it occurred to me that after the quickfails, the decline of most AfC submissions are based on lack of sourcing and that is the touchstone in the discussion above. However, the various iterations of text for lack of sourcing in the decline template only refers people to WP:N and WP:V as the basis of failure, with no guidance on how to address the failure. Of course, if submitters follow the links and explore WP:N and WP:V in detail and follow further links found there they will find out how to cite and how to look for sources and that they must be independent and reliable, etc. but we know that is expecting a lot from most. So I have added a "what you can do" section to all of the lack of sourcing versions of the decline template, with {{find sources}} included. I will post one below (substituted so I can remove the category). Let me know if you think it's an improvement and any tweaks you might have.

Redacted template as it was inserting categories that are incorrectHasteur (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea. From working away in the IRC help channels, where lots of people using the AFC process turn up, it's been apparent for a while that many don't feel at all enlightened by the decline templates. I think any changes that might help make things clearer could be beneficial in the long run. There's the show/hide section that has some useful links, but I don't think many of them will even notice that, considering how new they are, and how cluttered the templates already will seem to a newbie. I think this could be a step in the right direction. OohBunnies! (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow.

I didn't even notice that the template already has the show hide section with a find sources template in it and other links. Okay... so it looks like what I did is more than a little redundant (I'll go revert). I do think some of the text I added should be folded into that section; by saying "You may also wish to look at" it doesn't at all make clear that this is how to address the lack of notability and verification that the rejection is based upon. Maybe the solution is to tweak the section and not make it autocollapsed. I'm still reeling a bit from not noticing that was already included. Oi.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

How about: The reviewer found that this submission does not adequately demonstrate the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Notability refers to Wikipedia's rule that we only cover articles on subjects that have been covered in multiple, independent sources, such as media, books and academic works.

What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. User:King4057 20:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well that's my point, Fuhghettaboutit! If you didn't notice that bit, I doubt most of our users going through AfC did. I would be much in favour of having some of these links in with the actual decline reason box. OohBunnies! (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed – though I don't review AFC's I come across them often for various reasons, and I have never noticed the collapsed section. I've reverted my revert. We can tweak the language if necessary.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I worked with Earwig on the new design for the decline template and we also globally collapsed the "How to improve your article" section. I really think we need to make this section of the template easier for the noobs to see. I suggest we blow up the size of the drop down box and add something into all of the decline reasons talking about that box. (Then again, most noobs don't even read the decline reason and just cry to the reviewer...) --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 23:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that we're just going to keep adding and adding to this template, making it more bloated, more useless, and more confusing. The tips were collapsed because they were making the template too large to be useful – think of how MediaWiki:Blockedtext works. Obviously, the implementation was a bit poor. I have a proposed, shortened version of the submission template that removes what is, in my opinion, unnecessary:

Redacted template as it was inserting categories that are incorrectHasteur (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Changes:

Removed Your submission did not meet Wikipedia's criteria, but if you can address the issues found in the review, you are encouraged to make improvements and re-submit it. completely. This is essentially an introduction to the information in the rest of the template, which is not necessary if we're trying to make it concise. I think the template is clear about what happened. The first part is redundant to the decline reason. The second part is redundant to the first bullet point.
Details on how to resubmit are moved to an edit notice (Template:AFC submission/Subst/Editintro), and the two bullet points on that and editing are combined. Users do not need to know where the submit box will appear until they actually want to submit it.
Made the help desk / help channel one bullet point. Removed the "click here"s per WP:CLICKHERE.
Added {{findsources}} as the last bullet. I took out the other links since I think they're a bit much and specific pages should be linked from the decline reason, although I'm not entirely sure if this is the best idea. Perhaps they should be worked in somehow.
I also changed the yellow to gray because I find the yellow clashes too much with the red, but I'm not sure what's best here.

So, what do we think? — The Earwig ^(talk) 05:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow. This was exactly what I had in mind when we started the updates to the template a month ago. I hated all that yellow since it was added, and a lot of the stuff is just junk in the current template. How about we change "Review completed." to "Reviewed on mm/dd/yy at 00:00 UTC by BobTheCucumber (talk · contribs):". As well, how about for the short version we remove everything except the reason and that sentence? Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 01:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. I was playing around with different things to say for the header but couldn't come up with anything specific. I'm wondering if we should try "Declined on mm/dd/yy" instead of "Reviewed on mm/dd/yy" to make it clear exactly what happened. As for the "small" case, that sounds good too. — The Earwig ^(talk) 02:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not using July 3, 2012 – so that (using any method either mm/dd or dd/mm) there is definitive no confusion. There is also some template magic for doing that. ;-)

Moreover I would only 'hide' the 'not useful' stuff with the parameter |. At least I thought that I should develop that into the AFCH correctly... mabdul 08:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a massive improvement. joe•roe^t•c 10:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Applied it. Now trying to figure it out for the other templates. — The Earwig ^(talk) 21:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the new templates look much better than a while back. I'm also glad to see the decliner's name on the template again. I'm just trying to figure out why everyone freaked out and insisted the decliner's name not be on the template about 6 months ago, when someone we all know and love added it. :- ) Don 03:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Because we hadn't created the AFCH and moreover we had included a direct link to create a new thread on the talk page of the decliner resulting that (for example) Chzz (talk · contribs) got 80 new threads on his talk page within one night after he had cleared the backlog of ~400 submissions alone. mabdul 12:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I did not know that. Well they're looking good. :- ) Don 14:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A wee suggestion...

I don't know if anyone else will find this useful but I've recently taken to suggesting other projects that people could donate their material to when it clearly doesn't qualify for a wikipedia article (after seeing other folk do this at Teahouse). Wikinfo, Wikibios and Wikiversity are all happy to take material that doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and verifiability... Seems to work quite well as a slightly nicer way of turning away articles that are unlikely to ever qualify for wikipedia, no matter how much they're worked on... Loriski (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. How many Wiki**** are there to eat up the leftovers? :- ) Don 03:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There are sometimes even contributors (as opposed to just material), that are unsuitable for Wikipedia. At least a couple of them appreciated being directed by me to Wikia instead of Wikipedia. (Apparently "it doesn't have notability (requirements)!").

On occasion I've also directed struggling extremely young would-be editors to reputable websites providing "social network" type services to the very young, as a place for them to go instead of Wikipedia. Club Penguin and Runescape are examples.

A great many AfC submissions are material that would be more suited to LinkedIn, Facebook, MySpace and the like. A more complete list is at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

We have (instead of the TH) such big backlogs that we couldn't afford more time inviting the submitting users to repost the stuff to other projects... Most stuff is also not really useful except for projects like the closed wikicompany. mabdul 14:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be good to have the above link on some of the decline templates. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

For which project? All? Some? On which decline templates (all? corp? bio? music?)? I really don't want to place even more advertising for facebook... mabdul 16:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Certain ones which read like a Linkedin article, etc. This would include bio and company ones, if need be. I did mean that we link to the Alternativev outlets page, though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mabdul – I'd have thought that what there's time or not to do should come down to the discretion of individual editors, no? For my part, I don't find it chips away at my time much at all to put a suggestion for alternative outlets at the end of those reviews where I figure it would be helpful. And I tend to think that giving people alternative ways to go is likely to help in stopping some inappropriate articles being endlessly re-submitted and clogging up AFC ... I certainly wasn't suggesting that everyone should do it mind, I just thought some reviewers might find it handy... Loriski (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I want alternative outlets automatically on the decline templates. Maybe 60-70% of the time we just want the declined article to go away and die, but 20-30% of the time, it IS something we want, it just needs to be fixed. :- ) Don 03:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean, as in, Die! Die! Die, Jar-Jar-Binks!? I must confess I know the feeling. However, I have pointed at least one happy customer to Wiktionary instead, which was much less harmful to my blood pressure. And theirs. He/she even said thanks! David_FLXD (Talk) 14:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think pointing the 60-70% elsewhere is fine. I'm just certain that automatically pointing every decline elsewhere is a good idea. :- ) Don 17:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

I'm not quite sure what to do about this one. I blanked the AfC for copyvio and placed a warning at User talk:Robinjamesshort#July 2012. I don't think it's a CCI because it's just the one topic and hasn't been going on that long. But the user doesn't seem to want to mend his ways. So, just keep a lookout for him, or for anything on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kissak Kai Karate-do or similar titles. David_FLXD (Talk) 19:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Large amount of unacceptable recently accepted submissions.

(Note: If you know of a better place to take this, feel free to move this there) Okay, so not long ago I noticed user:Mdann52 and their request for unprotection, where they wanted Ken Sibanda unsalted as the writer had apparently drafted a suitable article at AfC (link). Obviously the article has problems, the writing is poor and the sources are poor, including IMDB sources. Worried that the user had made a habit of accepting not-too-great AfC submissions, I looked through their contribs and found that pretty much every submission this user has accepted has issues. Here is the list:

These articles are all very recently created, with a lot of sourcing problems and in many cases writing/formatting/tone problems. I've already asked the user to stop reviewing until they have more experience, but I have no idea what to do with all of these articles. I don't believe we have a process for bad articles recently created via AfC (like moving them back or something). The volume of articles here is beyond me. I'd really appreciate some more eyes on these articles so we can make sure they're dealt with. Some may need deleted, some may just need a big clean-up, but pretty much every single one has problems that are instantly noticeable.

I'm not trying to bite this user or anything. I think that, like many newer editors they've simply stumbled on an area where they've wanted to help out, but they don't have the required knowledge of policies and guidelines. As in, if they've accepted articles with Facebook as a source, I really doubt they've been spot-checking them for copyvios either. Some eyes/help would be great, please. I just don't know what to do with all these. OohBunnies! (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I CSD'd Lojinx Discography as it replicates the main article on Lojinx. Would it be possible to simply revert some of these acceptances (revert the moves)? --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's on mainspace, it's on mainspace, I wouldn't move them back to WT. Do what one would do if this were WP:NPP. That is, tag them for WP:CSD, WP:PROD, WP:AFD or cleanup and move on. KTC (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, these articles were suitable. If you disagree, by all means CFD them. However, I am willing to take a short break from AFC, but I will return to help out in the future. Mdann52 (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Mdann52, but it's not simply a matter of opinion. Some of these articles were borderline acceptable, but many have issues that to almost everyone else would mean an instant fail. If you continue to accept articles of this standard then I'm sorry but I would have to request you be topic banned from this area which I really would hate to do. To KTC, yeah I realise they are in mainspace now, but I'm looking for help as there are a lot of them and I'm busy with RL stuff too. OohBunnies! (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I know. It was partly in response to Nouniquenames question on whether to move them back out of mainspace. I'll have a look at some of these when I can. KTC (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2012(UTC)

Has someone blocked me from using AFCH? I can't make it work. Mdann52 (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no possibility to block somebody only for the tool (in contrast to AWB where this is possible). Try to bypass your browser's cache. mabdul 19:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I enabled the gadget and it now works. Mdann52 (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio problems

The first one I looked at, Natural Resource Charter has copyvio in it from the official website. They will all need reviewing for copyright violations. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ran a copyvio report and it more than G12d. Deleted that one, however they all still need copyvio checking. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 16:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

About reverting incorrect moves...

...don't do it. Even if a user incorrectly moved a submission, it should not under any circumstances be moved back to mainspace. Your basically saying to the noob that their article is horrible and it's not even close to being ready for mainspace. Do what an NPP would, mark it for deletion or tag it. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 17:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that tagging something for deletion is considered less bite-y than moving it to a special project space where it can be worked on without a deadline or fear of sudden removal? — Earwig ^talk 19:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's quite bite-y to approve something and then say "The reviewer who did this was an idiot. Sorry." --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 22:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect with the statement that we should "do what an NPP would". Poor pages are oftentimes userfied for improvement. That is what this is, moving it away from the mainspace to an area where it can be improved. That being said, I still don't have the technical knowledge to undo a move so this point is moot for me. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Moves generally leave redirects, so it takes an admin to undo them over a redirect/move without creating redirects. I agree that if an article clearly deletable, it's less bitey to move it to userspace rather than to just delete it. Which would upset the newbie more, hearing that their article isn't ready yet after all, or seeing their hard work be deleted? As with everything, how nice and courteous you are, and how carefully you explain it all to the newbie is what counts. OohBunnies! (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's just the redirect resulting from the initial move with no other history, then it is entirely possible to move the page back over the redirect. See WP:MOR. KTC (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Independent of the result: this should be added to the instruction page, or maybe let us create an additional FAQ page. mabdul 23:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've read that and tried it and been unable to do it. Next time you undo a move, create a video screencast and I just might give you 20 bucks. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Iconography of 9/11

In AfC we have: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Iconography of 9/11 and in article space we have: Iconography of 9-11, both apparently the work of User:Grotme, the latter having been edited a little by Paulderhooligan. Grotme apparently requested review of a sandbox article, and KTC moved it to AfC (manually? sandbox tag was still attached). Less than 6 hours later Grotme appears to have created the page in article space. The article doesn't seem ready for creation. What now? Do we wipe the AfC and hand the created article to New Pages Patrol? David_FLXD (Talk) 17:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I moved the page manually. I was going through CAT:AFC moving all those in userspace to WT:. You should probably clarify that the 6 hours was from when Grotme requested review and not from when I moved the sandbox article as the sentence seems to suggest right now. I didn't removed the sandbox template as it gets removed during review (using script) anyway. I've just declined the submission as existing in mainspace. As to the mainspace article, the same as to any other new article. The page was created on the 8th, so NPP won't see it now. If you have a problem with the article as it stand: CSD, Cleanup tags, PROD & AFD. -- KTC (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant what you said about the 6 hours; from user review request time. I don't think it's so bad it's a CSD or even PROD. I'll put a tag or two on it and see what happens. Thanks! David_FLXD (Talk) 17:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

HI, i would like to nominate "Shiela Birnbaum" for an article. She is a lawyer who gets paid by the company which bought FOXCOMM, the guys that wired up the Capitol Buildings wireless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.11.134.217 (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, 211.11.134.217! You need to submit your request at WP:REQUEST, not here, ok? David_FLXD (Talk) 20:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP Violation

Is there a way to modify the helper script and decline rationales to distinguish between unsourced BLP's and defamatory BLP's? Using the script places a note that the article can be deleted at any time; however, an unsourced BLP should have a delayed PROD. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a way: ask me. mabdul 19:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well consider yourself asked :) Thanks. I assume we'll need to create a new parameter in the decline template. Or at least a new parameter in the AFC cleared template. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not that sure what is needed: we have the {{afc cleared}} and we have {{afc cleared|CSD}}. Isn't Earwig clearing the BLPs, Copyvios, etc. regulary? mabdul 19:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If by "regularly", you mean "whenever I remember that we have these categories", then yes :P . I'll do a run soon. — Earwig ^talk 19:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, hmm. Declining as a BLP violation automatically adds {{afc cleared|CSD}} and doesn't give the option to remove CSD. That modification could be helpful. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We have two checkboxes: since a few days(or even weeks): One for blanking and one for triggering the CSD parameter. Maybe remove the line importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js'); // Yet another AfC helper script v4. of your User:Ryan Vesey/common.js and use the gadget (although Tim's version is always loading the gadget now) and don't forget to bypass your browser's cache! mabdul 19:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ooooh, you found a bug! The normal line while triggering the Afc cleared checkbox doesn't 'unhidden' the CSD parameter. Will be working in the next version! mabdul 19:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I'm assuming it is because it is autochecked. When I manually click the AfC cleared checkbox, the CSD parameter appears. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I had noticed that before. I honestly thought that was a feature and not a bug!

KTC (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, somehow it is... ^^; by the way: it is already fixed in my beta script, but I cannot push it since the HTML comment checker is also getting a bug fix and the script itself should get smaller by cleaning up the code. Tomorrow it should be possible to push it. mabdul 20:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

People should not be using the blp decline for unsourced BLPs. These do not need to be speedy deleted, and I have declined speedy deletes on those. Instead they need sourcing. They only need to be deleted if there are defamtaory. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's discuss the 3 declines, and you're out rule.

Without touching the article, that is. We have two, maybe three IP's from France playing Tag Team AfC. We were even asked to approved it as a stub, and they will make it an article later. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joël Courtois :- ) Don 02:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP in question submits a lot of translated articles from French Wikipedia. The problem is, some of them tend to be fairly rough translations; however, I am concerned by the declines of this article. The article has met the requirements of WP:Notability (academics) since the first submission. I am most appalled by the last submission. There is absolutely no requirement that an article has English sources. Has anyone heard of assume good faith? I'm accepting the article now, if someone disagrees they can take it to AFD. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

On that note, I would be absolutely against a 3 strike rule. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked at WP:ACADEMIC for more than a few minutes, and I don't see how it does and apparently others neither, but then I don't speak French. :- ) Don 03:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It meets criterion six "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society". That specifically refers to (among others) "President...of a significant accredited college or university". Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The school is accredited, but not significant, by any definition...I checked. I assume then, that you are of the opinion that no matter how bad an article is, the editor has no motivation to improve its quality in the slightest; he or she should simply keep resubmitting it until it happens to get approved by someone asleep at the switch. :- ) Don 04:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What makes the school insignificant? It is a graduate school. In any case, I have stated in the past that a resubmission without improvement should be declineable unless the submitter offers a reason why the decline was incorrect. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you said it, I'm sorry, I didn't know. Forgive me, please. :- ) Don 04:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia... if someone is using this as a resource and does not speak French, the references are useless. There is not one single English reference for this article, so how is the reviewer supposed to be able to verify the information? It may not be a Wikipedia rule, but should it be? Txcrossbow (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:NOENG, "it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy." --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

And as an example, see one of my submissions: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kaufhaus Wronker, which has mostly German-language references, with translations in the footnotes. The submission was declined as non-notable, and I added a comment about the issue and resubmitted to the review que. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 07:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Accepted! mabdul 09:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Should I point out the IP in question has created more (accepted) articles than most of the AFC reviewers? This is the English Wikipedia, but that merely mean the articles are written in English. As already stated, there is no, absolutely no requirements that sources for an article be in English. The project already have systemic bias, let's not compounded it further shall we? If we're going to reject articles because the sources are non-English, then let's delete a large proportion of the 4 millions articles we have. Let's look at the Did you know on show right now, oh hey look at that, one have sourecs in Indonesian and another some French and German. Maybe we should delete them... If you don't read the language of the sources, then use an online translation service if you like, or leave it for someone who does read the language. KTC (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem Don. Take care! Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Given the level of "learning mistakes" made by reviewers, some of which are highlighted in this discussion (declines of notable topics, declines because of non-english references), a 3 strike rule is a non-starter. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 06:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I approve article many time has non-English references, but something notable they have to begin. I'm waste my time not checking reference of notable person 3rd rate university president just because French they are. I have important things I do, like learn GooglEnglish. :- ) Don 06:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like Yoda, bad translation does. Agree we do notability first must be. Cleanup time takes surely. Time does not waste, Wikipedia we help! -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 09:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no and no! Most of the time, submitting an unimproved submission is an instant fail but equally, there's also plenty of time when a reviewer decline something that should be accepted, or it's borderline that another reviewer might have accepted. Only recently did I accepted two submissions straight after a decline without further edits (or even resubmission for review) that clearly meets the relevant subject specific notability guidelines. Please remember there's nothing that force someone to use AFC, they can easily create an account and create the article in mainspace. So you agree with the original assessment great, just press Decline. KTC (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, to be honest, the thing that got me started with AFC was the fact that I had approved a decent number of articles that were clearly incorrectly declined. We really need a way to make sure people understand that if it would pass ~~AFC~~ AFD it should pass here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh? :- ) Don 14:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've modified my comment slightly, I'm assuming you were referring to the double AFC. In any case, too many articles are incorrectly declined. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree with you, but there is a lot of bad stuff on the Wiki already. We need to improve the quality, not keep the status quo. AfD should be deleting stuff that is really bad with no hope of saving. When an article is approved by AfC, AfD should have NO reason to be sniffing around at it. :- ) Don 19:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The ip had a good point that you scoffed at. Approve an article as a stub. Let it into the mainspace where it can be improved. That is what crowdsourcing is all about. If every article had to be perfect before it was moved into the mainspace a)NPPers would have a field day and b)we would only have one article a month. I don't understand why the AFC process has become so much more stringent than regular editing. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to second Ryan's statement: otherwise you 'Don' should go to Citizendium... mabdul 19:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't help but agree. AFC is an acronym for "Article's for creation", not for "All featured content". Sometimes having a basic stub article is enough for someone else to start extending it. Besides this, i would point out that AFC has the dual purpose of helping new editors create a new article and perhaps persuade them to stay around, while it also allows for some quality control on the new article's. The result is that the new editors are happy they receive help rather then being smacked with a CSD template and a deletion (Oh, welcome to wikipedia, i just deleted your article – but otherwise your fine to stay), and Wikipedia received better quality new pages (Who's editors might have left otherwise due to the CSD procedure). If we were to force AFC criteria trough the roof this would counteract the entire purpose and added value of AFC. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting double standards. Toonz was beat to death for months, why could it not be a stub for a while? May if some French was added to the article... I have been slapped around when something when through with a few questionable sources. And, there are certain nameless people here who wait impatiently for an article to come out of AfC, so they can slap a CSD on it. This place is making me schizoid again. :-P... :- ) Don 20:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Because Toonz had not the valid information (stuff of the book, e.g. author, isbn, etc) of reliable sources (as discussed on my talk) and no other reliable/3rd party sources. (except ONE) – and thus failing GNG. It still has only one reliable book (I'm unsure how much they talk about Toonz) and one published interview... As I said: simple rule: 3 good reliable sources: accept (maybe after a self made trim down). mabdul 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's academic at this point, the tag team got blocked for a month. I can relax. :- ) Don 03:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the insight on non-English references. Next time, I will bypass and leave for a more experienced reviewer or someone who speaks the language. Stella Txcrossbow (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

A new one to me

This editor apparently created an article in AfC Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Areum, then cut and pasted it to Main space Areum and continued editing. Theoretically we should do a history merge to one or the other? Or should I just blow the AfC one away and move Main space article back to AfC? :- ) Don 04:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Since it is the same editor doing both pages, no history merge is needed, they own the copyright of the text and are free to use it in multiple places without attributing themselves. In this case I would jsut decline the AFC without prejudice as a "exists" and leave it at that. This actually happens quite often. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Without prejudice sounds pretty legal? Let NPP deal with it? :- ) Don 06:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I normally tag them for history merge, simply to remove duplicated texts in enwp. ^^ mabdul 08:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I cleaned the one in Main, and db-g6 the one in AfC. :- ) Don 17:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bigfoot Rapids

I would appreciate some help with this one. Will one of you more experienced editors please review this article. See comments on my talk page and author's talk page for background. Thanks, Stella Txcrossbow (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Working :- ) Don 23:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sri Sri Sitaramdas Omkarnath

wall of text; wrongly placed submission

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sri Sri Sitaramdas Omkarnath is a renowned yogi-saint of Bengal, India. Swami Chidananda, President, Divine Life Society, Rishikesh, declared him a "Naam Avatar". He achieved very high spiritual realization at the tender age of six. As a youth, on the command of His Guru, Sri Dashrathi Dev, He assumed householder-ship. He began spiritual practices anew, despite already having reached a pinnacle of experience in his spiritual life. Over a long life spanning ninety years, he met many saints from the various faiths and religions of India, a country that is a melting pot of religions from all parts of the world.

Among these saints were the revered Dalai Lama, Anandmayi Ma, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Swami Chidananda, Sushilkumar Jain, Daya Ma, and various Sufi saints including Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan. He won admiration from, and deep veneration of, one and all. He spread his religion-less Divine message in every nook and corner of India.

Sri Sitaramdas Omkarnath attracted every type of devotee. Most of his devotees belonged to the Hindu fold, but there were many from Muslim, Christian, Jain and Buddhist faiths as well. Many of his devotees hailed from foreign countries too. The Indian intellectual class was struck at the breadth and depth of Sitaram’s knowledge, his literary abilities and his spiritual attainments, despite such a simple upbringing.

Many of his writings are quite in the revelatory class of spiritual literature like the Vedas and Upanishads. He was also able to reach the less literate and intellectual as well. Everyone knew that in his presence it was possible to realize God. The abstruse was dispensable. The simplest practices had the demonstrable power of bringing about the highest spiritual realizations. The ritualistic-minded found his simple practices liberating.

Sitaramdas attracted devotees in lakhs. Thousands gathered wherever he went. Though leading a life of near-poverty, he gathered and disbursed huge sums of money and food in charity. He expounded and promoted the tenets of the ancient Vedanta and Sanatana Dharma in his writings. In his works, the significance of various practices of Hindu Dharma is explained inunequivocal terms.

There is an all-inclusiveness and comprehensiveness about his philosophy, which is very reassuring. He explains in unequivocal terms, that for persons having evolved to different degrees, different approaches to spirituality may be called for depending o their "stage" of realization. Sitaram himself is known for having revived interest in the chanting of the names of God, Naama-Japa. He came to be known widely as the ‘Naam Avatar’ (Incarnation of the Name of God or personification of Naam). In his life, Omkarnath attempted to map in minute detail the entire terrain of his own spiritual realization. He made great effort to explain his own experiences in detail, which always inspired his devotees. The practice of Naam-Japa is actually ancient, but it has often historically been linked to the cult of Bhakti. He taught that Naam-Japa can lead on into the "deep yoga" where one has access to Jyoti (Divine Light) and Nada (Divine Sound Om) , which he called the "essence of all yoga". Omkarnath always stated that this was a blissful but arduous course of yoga, and was never meant for the modern masses because it calls for true renunciation, including sexual continence, right diet and a daily commitment to long hours of meditation and silence.

One also needs an able adept or guide who has probed the depths of authentic realization. All these are scarce these days, not even valued or sought after. To adopt the Naam practice truly is to rise to the Divine sphere of yoga, he said, for it invites the descent of true Nada and true Jyoti that characterize "deep yoga".

He often declared that these two experiences, Jyoti and Nada, were common to all human beings, all types of bodies or minds, all sects or denominations. Whatever one’s creed or degree of preparation, if you are on the way to the Supreme Reality, one is bound to experience Nada and Jyoti.

"Seekers of every shade and complexion meet at this crossing of the roads: this is a point where all roads must meet, and then they diverge, each following its course, until they meet finally again on fulfillment. This last point of convergence, this confluence is marked by realization of the descent of Divine Light (Jyoti) and the resounding Divine Sound in the head (Om). " On this Master’s analysis, or rather his mapping of the various spiritual streams, it follows that diversity of spiritual approach is an admitted and inescapable fact; because aptitudes and temperaments greatly vary, approaches have got to be various and a leveling down of all difference into one drab and rigid monotony is neither desirable nor practicable. What is sauce for the goose cannot be sauce for the gander; the fox and the crane cannot feed from the same vessel. So diversities are and should be there. But a unity emerges out of all diversities: the goal is one and the same for all, and the Rome that all roads lead to is Divine Light and Sound.

Omkarnath on "Deep-Yoga: "Apart from this final meeting- point, there are three more points where they meet: the first is the starting-point, namely the Naam; the next is the crossing of the roads at Nada and Jyoti, and the thrird is the deep Yoga of Light. All irrespective of creed and ideology can chant the Naam or and say it silently: to start with Naam is an ideal course in spiritual life. It is a simple way for which all are eligible, because it encourages unbroken concentration even to those who otherwise seem completely incapable of it. "And it is also possible for those who subscribe to a different ideology to adopt the Naam as an adjunct to their own cult, for the Naam is a short cut to Jyoti and Nada, which constitute the passport to the more advanced "deep yoga". "This stage forms a common platform for all seekers, and when this stage has been reached, the paths bifurcate again, the Hatha Yogi concentrating on Jyoti, the Laya Yogi on Nada, the Raja Yogi aspiring after Nirvana, the Bhakta yearning for the vision of God, the Jnani undertaking vichara or analysis of the Supreme in the form: Neti Neti, Not this, Not this, A-savdam, A-sparsam, Not-sound, Not –touch, Only-Light and so on."

That different seekers present different grade of eligibility is a fact. But it is equally a fact that this basic inequality is hard for even spiritual aspirants to exactly own these days. No one "wants" their ego to die. To deserve and then desire Realization may be beginning wisdom, but to be actually Realized is not at all easy, particularly in our own dark times. Even the unprepared billions have their own world-views and aspirations, and because they have yet to be "fit" for what they demand, they cannot curtail their aspirations in proportion to their competence. This psychological factor results in frustration, sullen despair or even suicidal daring. Some even disparage or belittle the whole process of True Realization and keep out of spiritual realms altogether. Their thirst remains unslaked as a result and their aim in life remains unRealized, but they cannot help it.

Some dare beyond their deserts and come to grief; in defiant spirit of rebellion they practise what proves disastrous for them. Unhappy they find impostors too in the field to exploit and ruin them, for so-called gurus do appear before them, all too willing to initiate them either ignorantly or fraudulently into mantras or systems to which they are not actually entitled at the moment, the consequences proving deplorable at the end.

Omkarnath stated that a True Master solves this problem with sympathy and originality, both equally rare and profound. He eases the situation by placing all alike on the same footing; he preaches the Naam to which all have equal access and by virtue of which all eventually can rise alike to the summit, if they have the strength to reach the "deep-yoga". To chant the Naam and repeat it constantly is to earn the deep-yoga threshold of Sound and Light that is desired innately by all. Is it the right to Pranava (chanting Om) that is demanded? Voicing the demand is useless; willful utterance without eligibility will be harmful.

But to repeat the Naam is to have Pranava (Om) well up from within the being as Naad, and that alone is realization of Pranava. To chant or put ‘Om Om Om’ in the mouth is silly as well as even deadly except for those prepared for Jivanmukti, and a Jivan- mukta is scarce; but to chant the Naam is to have the Pranava Nada and then ‘Om’ distinctly and continuously audible within.

So the Master offers the Naam and all else including the deep-yoga of Light via the Naam. And he does not want you to argue uselessly: he asks you to do it and to see the result for yourself. Omkarnath's is the scientific way, the way of experimental verification. The taste of the pudding is in the eating: the truth of what he says is to be tested; it is to be verified by practice. OM. PEACE. PEACE. PEACE.

By Prof. Sadananda Charkrabarti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.63.69.193 (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It could be a lot more neutral; there are many examples in this piece, including "To chant or put ‘Om Om Om’ in the mouth is silly" for one. Stella Txcrossbow (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:TL;DR! Please go to WP:WIZARD. mabdul 17:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Backlog

I am trying to do my part with helping review articles. 600+ in the backlog is exciting, but also discouraging. The other day I was reviewing, and it seemed like for every one article I reviewed and subsequently left comment, declined or created article, 2 or 3 more took its place. My questions is this... being a new reviewer, I wanted to know

Is this typical? My experience so far has seen it teeter between 300-400
Was there an influx of new articles all at once or are all the reviewers busy with regular-life stuff?
Is there a way I can scan through the AFC for music-related categories or one of my other areas of experience?

Thanks, "Stella" – Txcrossbow (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As with anything random, they can come in as a steady stream or in great bunches. They can go out as a steady stream, I don't have much time now, so I will do a review (if not too complicated) maybe once or twice a day, not much of a dent in the backlog, but if 500 others are doing the same, then we have a steady stream out also. Then, some reviewer may have too much time and coffee, and knock out 100+ in a day.

There has been ongoing discussion of categorizing, but no consensus as to how to do that. The situation also may happen that nobody will want to review articles on refuse collection in third world countries. :- ) Don 16:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It was up to around 1,000 a couple weeks or a month ago. AndrewN grabbed a bunch of reviewers and we really made a dent in it. Then even more recently it got taken way down. It's been growing steadily since then so we might need another huge drive. The problem with this is that it tends to get a bit decline heavy in the effort to clear the backlog. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ages ago we had a Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Backlog Drive, maybe reactivate it... The tool can easily add some AFC statistics to userspace/WP space... mabdul 16:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to do something to encourage users to clear our backlog of long articles. Possibly basing it on total article size (either readable prose size using a script or the actual size). At the same time, if we did this, something should be done to discourage rubber stamping. It is easier to delete an article than it is to accept it. It is also easier to accept an article than it is to accept an article, add wikiprojects, add categories, clean up glaringly poor formatting, and add persondata and {{L}} if it is a biography. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Drives sounds like a cool idea – I think it's quite helpful sometimes to have a sense of focus and targets and all that :) Ryan, I've noticed that the copyediting crew do regular drives and have worked on ways of recognizing quality as well as quantity as it were: in their case, reviewers that take on particularly long or unwieldy articles, or articles that have been avoided for ages by pretty much everyone... So maybe it'd be possible to pinch a few ideas from the way they do things? Loriski (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Drives are good, although I would strongly suggest that new reviewers have their first, say, 10 AfC's checked by a drive coordinator. The potential for abuse (and free barnstars) often brings out the best in people, as Ryan can tell you. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 17:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

We may want to consider increasing the standards or implementing some kind of mentoring. I check up on new people added to the review list, and I saw one who's first edit on the wiki was to his/her talk page and the second edit was to put an Afc article under review. A little scary to me. There are many joining with 100's of edits. I know they may be new nicks with much experience, however... I thousands of edits and reviewing is still a daunting task to me. :- ) Don 18:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And drives will only exacerbate that problem. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 18:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As a note primarily to you Nolelover. Our articles should be slightly more wikified with an update Mabdul is making to the script. See User talk:Mabdul#AFCH Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I know someone (PamD?) brought up {{L}} and Persondata a long time ago at WT:WWF, but I still have trouble with those...And accepting a submission where those are missing always feels wrong to me. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 19:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've always added them in the append box; however, it is incredibly annoying to look up Persondata to copy paste every time. In addition the box is so small it is hard to add persondata. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The ground design is already working, so I might be able to finish the development for that. Everybody who wants to test it, feel free to use my beta script. mabdul 19:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How can I tell how many articles I have reviewed today. I saw a lot of garbage, some garbled, I passed on some, did some cleanup on some and moved a couple of good ones. I'm just curious. The category question I posed... (sigh) I understand what you're saying, Don (that was hilarious)... I have reviewed a couple of articles that could have been placed in that category. The backlog will come down when it comes down. I am against the reviewer drive considering the amount of approved articles that needed more work or references. Someone is approving articles without proper cleanup (grammar, structure, references, etc.). Mentoring sounds like a good idea, though. "Stella"Txcrossbow (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I find I can get through more articles if I try to pick a "type" eg company names, or personal names, or sandboxes, and just work with those for a while. It also helps to keep perspective and not decline too quickly, since you have a better basis for comparison. I've been watching the number climbing for a few days now, been working in another area, but I will come back and help right now! David_FLXD (Talk) 05:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what I have been doing, David. As I am reviewing more and more articles, I starting choosing by name. Thanks... any word on how to tell how many articles I have reviewed> I am curious. Stella Txcrossbow (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to know the same thing, more particularly, my stats on accept/decline ratio. I asked an Admin, but was told there is no automated way at present. I sat down and counted the first 200 articles manually! If Mabdul should happen to see this, a little script would be nice; you could also see if your ratio was in the "right" ballpark – and adapt sooner if you were getting something wrong.... David_FLXD (Talk) 19:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned at the thread about the backlog drive, I can add a simple log (mainly accepting/declining) of the review stuff in the reviewer's userspace; which would produce an extra edit for every review, so a toolserver tool solution might be more welcomed. For the development related to the script: this won't happen until I have developed the 'userpreferences' part which will need some time... mabdul 22:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

An accept/decline ratio could be useful for comparing a reviewer's output to the current overall ratio, but reviews pick and choose articles, so I'm not sure how useful it would be in any context. What could be useful for quality control and reviewer proficiency would be an accept/retain ration each week, months, 3 months, or whenever. :- ) Don 23:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a very useful metric in my opinion, as reviewers might use a different patrol methodology. Personally i patrol from the front of the queue (Newest article's first), and i tend to check article's quickly for common errors, while ignoring article's that require a more in depth check to verify their quality. As a result you will see that i accept very little article's (1 in 100 reviews perhaps). For those wondering why i patrol that way: It reduces the backlog, and it increases the change that an editor will see the feedback as they are still likely to be around when the article is being reviewed (Rather then having to wait a longer time). Other editors work the other way around, and spend a lot of time improving a single decent quality article to acceptable standards. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It would not measure of how wonderful an article looked, it would be a measure of whether the article should have been accepted at all. If 90% of a reviewer's articles end up deleted in 3 months, he or she better look at their methods. :- ) Don 14:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Congorock

I helped an anonymous editor write this. The project is severely backlogged though so shall i just go ahead and move it to mainspace? Or would that be in poor taste…? Cheers, benzband (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Declined as discussed in IRC. mabdul 17:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Amazon refs removed, added discogs/other instead. benzband (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Strange request

I just got a message on my talk page saying "Can you, please, create a redirect of the page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sunny Singh, IX 'D' of DAV Sasaram? This title is very long, people often commit mistake while typing such a long title. I, only, request you to create a redirect (short which can typed easily) of mentioned page. Thanks for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnysinghthebaba (talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)". Why me? I have no idea, and I have no knowledge of the AfC process, but it's clear to me that that thing needs to be deleted one way or another, and perhaps some other action needs to be taken. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You could point them in direction of Wikipedia:Article wizard/Redirect. benzband (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like for somebody else to handle this, if possible. I have never had the slightest involvement with AfC and don't really want to have to learn about it right now. Looie496 (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Err, the user wants to get his submission accepted... Please don't. I believe directing him(?) to Facebook would be the right way... mabdul 17:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Better yet, send him to Linked In :- ) Don 23:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh, "resolved": 'draft' was deleted by CET. ;-) mabdul 09:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed new AFCH script feature – Marking a draft as high quality for WikiProject Abandoned Drafts

Since this concerns two Wikiprojects, this section is transcluded on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts as well
Hello there fellow AFC reviewers,

I had a short discussion with Mabdul regarding a possible new feature for the AFC helper script, that would allow a reviewer to mark a draft as high quality for WikiProject Abandoned Drafts consideration. For those unfamiliar with the Wikiproject: WikiProject Abandoned Drafts adopts high quality drafts created by editors who have left the project, and never finished or managed to post what they were writing.

During AFC review this is also a fairly frequent situation – Some drafts only lack a few details before they are accepted, yet the editor never return to finish the last few issues. Since the draft is declined, and since multiple people are reviewing, a draft might get lost in the 55K+ declines drafts even though it would only take some polish to finish. To prevent this i would suggest an additional option for the AFC helper script, that allows one to mark a promising draft for tracking. If the original writer would suddenly leave, there would be a record of his draft for someone else to pick up (Without having to sift trough thousands of declined pages to find them.

A few things to consider though:

Thoughts? Would this help Abandoned Drafts / Would other AFC patrols be willing to spend a few clicks extra on this?
What would be the criteria for marking a draft as decent? Could we set up some basic guiding principles for what does and what doesn't quality as being high quality?

Any idea's and suggestions are most welcome :) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea, makes a lot of sense. Personally, I would be prepared to finish nearly-ready articles, if the topic happened to be something I know about. One criterion I would suggest is that at least adequate sources must already be in place on the page. Formatting, npov and formality edits don't take long. Finding the material with which to finish the article, that's a whole different challenge. Maybe get some categories in first? David_FLXD (Talk) 20:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I like it. I generally use the comment box on ones I find encouraging but aren't compliant with our policies. It wouldn't be hard to check a box. I'm assuming the information would be stored at WikiProject Abandoned Drafts? It would be best if it was stored by date of last edit so they weren't being worked on until they were a month old or so. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I figure that storing it at a separate WikiProject Abandoned Drafts page would be the best location, since any content or cats on the article itself could accidentally be overwritten. I figure some form of cleanup automation (EG: Check last edit, check if approved) would equally be practical to prevent useless manual work that a bot could easily do. The checkbox itself might be an extra review checkbox similar to the teahouse invitation, or perhaps an entirely separate option (Both have their pro's and con's).

As for the criteria i think that the article must have decent sourcing that passes the notability criteria. Alternatively the article could be well written and lacking sources – in these cases a quick search for sources by the reviewer could be done – if apparantly decent sources pop up, it might be worth the time to mark it for quality as well.Other than this it is very much a per-case basis. I can imagine not everyone would want to pick up a spamfest, trainwreck draft on some company even if it might pass notability. Then again, you can always hammer a stub out of those. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup! There's many cases where a submission is "almost ready", but needs some attention before it can survive in mainspace. I'm neutral on what methods is used: via Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts, or Wikipedia:Article Incubator, or whatever. The main concept of being able to mark a draft as "probably notable and almost ready", and an easy way to list/browse those drafts, is good. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, so under which conditions should the checkbox triggered (or better saying under which conditions it never shouldn't)? I original thought about: unreferenced – never, but watching at the thread at the bottom... mabdul 18:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What to do about this article that needs Spanish referencing...

Hi there!

I picked up this article on Jorge Prieto Laurens to review. It doesn't provide any sources. The guy is clearly notable (as a quick google search shows) so I would usually put the references in myself. However, in this case, most of the sources are in Spanish and while I've got a bit of Spanish it's definitely not enough to do a good job of this. Any Spanish-speaking takers? Or should I write to the creator and ask for sources? or...

Thanks!

Loriski (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can't add them, decline as unsourced (|v|), and then request help at the related wikiprojects. mabdul 18:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mabdul :) Loriski (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

MFD on userspace submission

I was just doing reviews and ran into this: User:Dreduardoa/sandbox. I was going to do a standard move into AFC space, but it is MFD tagged, see discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dreduardoa/sandbox. So I didn't move it, and was unsure what to do. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 21:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've marked it as under review to remove it from the normal queue pending the MfD outcome. Other then that, unless someone is able to improve the article to deal with the concerns raised at MfD, I would just leave it alone pending the outcome of the MfD discussion. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

AfC Statistics

I have done a significant amount of checking, and at this time there appears to be no accurate way to turn off the AfC Statistics (Submissions) when it is too large to display. However at this time is is 4 days old and pretty much useless. I think we can script it to shut down when it gets too old to be useful. Yes, no? :- ) Don 00:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Which page are you talking about? Do you mean the sortable list found in the grey tab at the top? --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 00:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yap :- ) Don 00:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It's the Toolserver's replag (~40h 53 m 5s). Multiple queries to TS admins have resulted in the same response (it's out of their control – we'll just have to wait through it). The bot doesn't update when said lag is high to avoid overloading the servers. I can manually override it, and I'm doing so now, which shouldn't take too long. 40-hour-old statistics are better than five-day-old statistics, anyway. — The Earwig ^(talk) 03:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've messed with the page and added a sentence to the lead section explaining the issue and how to get around it. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 16:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

40-hour-old is much better than five-day-old if it can be done, but will 40-hour-old statistics be useful? The problem is, at what point are the statistics not useful and a waste of server time? I can't think of anyway of determining the accuracy without comparing the entire list against reality, which would take even more server time. Bummer. :- ) Don 16:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Nathan, there was/is already logic in the header that handled the instructions and switched the statistics on or off. Adding instructions does not reduce server time unless the statistics are turned off. :- ) Don 16:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess the warning is a good idea, but we will have to manually remove it. I don't think there is any way to get the replag as a parameter that could be used. :- ) Don 17:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Good work Earwig!!! Much better than July 4th or whenever. :- ) Don 16:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I've heard from toolserver-l that this lag is expected to continue at a steadily increasing rate until early August. It'll then be a while after the lag finishes climbing before it reaches 0 (as the servers have to catch up)... frankly, I've become disillusioned with the Wikimedia Foundation's tech teams over the past year, since we've had at least two month-long chunks where replag has been outrageously high, and similarly, database lag within the WMF cluster has often been reaching dangerous peaks as well. I can't tell if this is just me or we've actually been having more problems than usual. Oh well. — The Earwig ^(talk) 22:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Holy *! Maybe someone should have considered the effect the operation would have on toolserver. *shake head and walk away*. KTC (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Earwig. I'm not sure how you are doing the statistics, but I assume no matter how you approach it, they will jump on you for using server time. But, you make think this is weird and they may yell about doing it this way also, but I have done similar things in the past: Do it offline by downloading and upload HTML. :-p If you need server time elsewhere, I have a bunch available. I don't think it would be a horrible task, if you used something like Perl. :- ) Don 23:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but server time isn't the problem. EarwigBot is running fine from the Toolserver as it is, with no issues in terms of resources. The problem is the delay between the Toolserver's replicated database of Wikipedia and the actual database itself. I can run the bot from pretty much any server on the planet but I wouldn't get access to this particular database outside of the Toolserver unless I could sneak it onto the WMF's servers directly (which is, obviously, impossible). — The Earwig ^(talk) 03:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking much, much more klungier (sic). Download the Category:Pending AfC submissions in HTML. Extract each article's name. Download each article in HTML and extract the status information. Build the table and upload to the server in the text editor, or some HTML backdoor. We would just be sucking up some bandwidth and Apache time. I've done worse things. See Rube Goldberg. :- ) Don 03:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an interest in rewriting the bot to screen-scrape HTML pages. We have an API that works very well. In fact, it wouldn't be hard to add redundancy to the statistics task so it can delegate what is normally done via SQL to the API – the framework for that is in place (do things via the API if SQL replag is >= some constant, else use SQL), I just haven't bothered using it in this task since I'm not used to replag being higher for more than short periods. Obviously it's much slower since we have to wait for loading the API when SQL is very fast. Perhaps it's time to look into this more carefully if the WMF stays this unreliable. I'll think about it after Wikimania. — The Earwig ^(talk) 14:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I assumed as much. I know you do a lot of work. I was just throwing out a crazy idea. :- ) Don 19:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like lag has peaked (got up to 68,900 seconds yesterday-ish, now at 38,600), so normal functionality should be restored very soon. I'll look into a more long-term solution if this lag ever occurs again. — The Earwig ^(talk) 21:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I calculated the exact numbers, and we have ~10 hours before normal service resumes. Great! --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 22:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That was earlier than expected from the earlier cited mailing list post, and....... it's going down!!!!!!!!

KTC (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's actually been hovering around 10-7 hours for the past couple of days... — Earwig ^talk 19:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

And of course it jumped back up again... KTC (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope to have a bit of free time coming up. I may play with what Earwig calls a screen-scrapper, just for the fun of it. :- ) Don 00:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Groan. — Earwig ^talk 19:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeap, bummer. Is replag available somewhere as a parameter? I know template size is not, until it is expanded, and then it is dumped as a comment in the HTML output. :- ) Don 22:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hooray. Replag is gone!!!! Wake up the Earwig :-)

:- ) Don 06:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope. 11h 23 m 36s and increasing at a rate of one second per second. — Earwig ^talk 08:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeap, it was at zero, maybe only for the second I checked, then it started climbing again. :-( :- ) Don 14:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And going down now! Rather quickly, in fact (-1.50 s/s roughly) but from much higher than before. I seriously hope this is indicative of the problem being resolved once and for all. And by the way, replag wouldn't be a parameter since it's not on this wiki directly but on the Toolserver. {{Toolserver}} is updated with replag every hour or so, I think, but it seems to be getting its replag for enwiki from a different server (whose lag is much, much higher than the lag on the one I'm using). — Earwig ^talk 17:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that could of use in minimizing chaos around here. The other thought that occurred to me, since the people at Mediawiki said no way to get expanded template size, would it be possible for your afc statistics to dump the total number of lines somewhere? I tried using the submission number, but is not reliable because it does not indicate the total size which also depends on accepts and declines. :- ) Don 18:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't be too hard... any idea where to put it? Probably not something to update every hour with the template itself, though. Perhaps twice a day? — Earwig ^talk 05:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Man there is a lot of crap in WikiProject Articles for creation. There are some really old things and a stat page here and there like WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/total (whatever that is). I assume nobody has dibs on anything. Maybe WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/count or WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Statistics/count. :- ) Don 06:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Gérard Desbois

This article has been declined 6 times by 5 different people. It has been a big point of contention as demonstrated on the talk page. I submitted it to MfD for a second opinion so to speak, but the general populous does not seem to be very interested in dealing with the French either. Perhaps we could get some independent opinions from some people here not involved. I just want it to go or stay. The only other option I see is to move it to Main space and CSD it. Thanks. :- ) Don 19:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Live feed

Hi mad... I got your message but I so lost. Techie I may be but most of your message went over my head. Please advise Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE _GROOVES 23:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Something broke?

I keep finding articles in sandboxes with AfC templates that are already in WT:AfC. And, there is no easy way to find the problem children until they collide somewhere along the way. :- ) Don 03:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Me too! I have seen nearly a dozen tonight, never had seen before. They show up in the Pending queue, as the user name with sandbox. --FeralOink (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I found a work around that seems to work. In the sandbox, find the title of the article and search WT:Articles for creation/Title of article. If you get a hit, delete the AfC templates from the sandbox. If you don't get a hit, then is should move fine. :- ) Don 16:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Don! (And a > :-) to you too!) --FeralOink (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In need of help with a repeatedly submitted U.S. electoral article submission

I just declined an article, which was the second or perhaps third time it had been declined. Article name is United States gubernatorial elections, 1973, submitted by user Emeraldgirl. I couldn't find any reference to such elections when I tried to review the article. I did find lots of strange stuff though, see the results returned please via Google and the Wikipedia reviewing helper tool (sorry, this is a hideous looking URL, but I can't enter it with Wiki formatting as it is being rejected as blacklisted):
hxxps://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=%22United+States+gubernatorial+elections+1973%22&oq=%22United+States+gubernatorial+elections+1973%22&gs_l=serp.3...188165.192426.0.192998.14.14.0.0.0.0.137.1607.1j13.14.0...0.0...1c.QlVnQLtrP-g
The most troubling were this, which is some kind of creepy malware PHP redirect thing that is red flagged by Web Of Trust, this is the URL:
hxxp://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=0CJEBEBYwCw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zensquared.com%2Femail%2Findex.php%3Fq%3DaGh0dHA6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvQ2F0ZWdvcnk6UGVuZGluZ19BZkNfc3VibWlzc2lvbnM%253D&ei=i94QUKDVOaLh0QH784DAAw&usg=AFQjCNEmZ8O0TdWoD-0O7llp97QWVh3BHg&sig2=7_7kjtBs6fRAEdGrOKrlBw
and says "Jul 7, 2012 – ... 1972 · Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/United States gubernatorial elections, 1973 · Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mass intelligentsia ..."
and several links from this website epo dot wikitrans e.g. hxxp://epo.wikitrans.net/show.php?id=2900962.
Two more odd things:

The Google search for these 1973 elections also returned an entry for User:Status which is apparently for a Wikipedia user whose user name is "Status"? The content was as follows "United States gubernatorial elections, 1973, 4.0 kB, resubmit, Emeraldgirl (t), 50406232204:42, 25 Jul 2012 · Citation bot (t), 50406233204:42, 25 Jul 2012 ..." Please do not tell me that there is nothing peculiar about a Wikipedia user named "Status"! Shouldn't that be a reserved name, analogous to a sentinel value or such?
There was a red font BOLD WARNING message, about an exceptionally long comment in the HTML for the page, and a suggestion to check the source. I did so, twice, couldn't find anything.

Could someone who knows more than I do check into this please? It seems irresponsible for me not to mention these things to someone. --FeralOink (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The comment was on the last line. It has now been removed. --Nouniquenames (talk) 08:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for having a look at that, and removing the comment in question, NoUniqueNames. Did I have any basis for concern regarding that website zensquared and the ominous sounding "Mass Intelligentsia"? Or is it just a result of Google spiders crawling WP pages, and finding this entry in some form, as it has been around for nearly a month? This was the first time I ever saw SERP in a URL, first hand. (Call me naive, at least to SEO). Thanks again for your promptness. --FeralOink (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Autobiography Welcome

I just welcomed someone with Twinkle, who submitted apparently an autobiography. The template says his article has or will be shortly CDS'd. I did not think autobiographies were prohibited? And, how does it get CSD'd? :- ) Don 18:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Per the content guideline at WP:AB, "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged." (Emphasis reproduced from source) --Nouniquenames (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That was my understanding, we don't even have a CSD category for such. Perhaps Twinkle needs a tweak? :- ) Don 22:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I can only assume it would be under A7 (no indication of importance) or G11 (as blatant promotion). WP:AB states "If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion." Unfortunately, it doesn't say under which criteria. (Also, per WP:NOTCSD, WP:NOT is not a valid reason for CSD.) I looked at (what I think is) the user to whom you referred, and the AfC submission appears simply declined, not CSD'd. --Nouniquenames (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeap, but the problem is what Twinkle told the user. Check the talk page RangsimanD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). :- ) Don 00:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you that what Twinkle told the user is a serious issue. If autobiographies are subject to CSD, then TW should have appropriately tagged the article instead of just warning. If they are not, the warning shouldn't appear. Also, I have mentioned this (save for the TW issue) at WP:VPP Autobiographies and CSD – Conflict to try to gain clarity and eliminate the conflict. Then, in theory, TW could be updated to follow both (instead of being broken somewhere in between). --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks Nounique. I think there is a saying "Don't bite the newbies". I don't think we should terrorize either. :- ) Don 02:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like good sense to me! A note has been posted to Wikipedia talk:Twinkle so that they can hopefully sort things out, too. I'm glad that you caught it. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I discovered there is a good reason to blank and CSD a first Wiki effort autobiography; when it's unsourced and the kid practically includes a map to his house and his phone number. But, it should be the reviewer's discretion. -- :- ) Don 00:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if it's a minor, that would be reason for Oversight. --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thx.

Done -- :- ) Don 16:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Titles

I just tried to move User:Ryan nojadera/BIGSTART INCORPORATED: Center for Research and Personality Development and could not move... the title is blacklisted which brings me to two questions:

How does an article title get blacklisted...please give me the short answer
If this is a recurring issue, can someone please delete the page and block the user/i.p.

That is all. carry on. Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE _GROOVES 07:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it blacklisted, or is it salted? What's the exact message you got when you tried to move it? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've run into this issue also, and didn't know what to do. Title is blacklisted, but not salted. Error message is:

"old-title" cannot be moved to "new-title", because the title "new-title" is on the title blacklist. If you feel that this move is valid, please consider requesting the move first."

and with a link to MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist and Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 07:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The blacklist forbids pagemoves to a title with more than 9 consecutive capital letters. It should work fine if you just decapitalize it. I went ahead and moved it to AFC space and reviewed. In doing so, I see that I'm not even warned the title is blacklisted, which seems kind of silly to me. I guess the thing to do in the future with these is post them on WP:RM, or adjust the title if you know what is setting off the blacklist. You can also just ask me; I'm here every day. Asking on this talk page probably works to, as several admins have it watchlisted. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

And account creators. ;-) mabdul 09:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Linkvio

Many of you will already know this, but there are also many new reviewers like me, who may not.
I just discovered that even an external link to a webpage which one knows (or suspects) is hosting material in violation of copyright, is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. See WP:LINKVIO. That means that every new article containing links to, hmmm, what example comes to mind? Oh, say YouTube (!), is possibly or probably in breach of the copyright policy.
YouTube (I went and looked) does not provide any way of verifying whether a particular video or whatever has been properly licenced. Also, while they claim to uphold copyright owners' rights, they place on the copyright holder the burden of first discovering that the copyrighted material even exists on YouTube, and then submitting a specific notice or notices requesting removal of the material from YouTube. So, as Dougweller informed me, it might be a good idea to remove any links to YouTube before accepting a new article. Of course, there may exceptions, such as material that originates with YouTube itself, in which case the link would be ok. But all those news videos... probably not. David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 12:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yea, in the vast majority of cases Youtube links should be deleted. If the video is a copy of a news broadcast/speech/etc, then sometimes the event itself can be used as a reference, but no link to youtube should be added.

Probably the only exceptions are when the copyright status of the video is expressly declared, was uploaded by the copyright holder, and not available anywhere else. For example see the external media template at bottom of this AFC draft, which includes a link to a Youtube video. The video is copyrighted by the Daytona Beach News-Journal, has a copyright and credit notice at the end of the video, was uploaded by the official newspaper account, and no other sources of the video found online yet. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 13:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me run this by you. A while back, I put a citation for Tony Iommi's guitar tunings, referencing a number of professionally recorded concerts or albums, and inviting those verifying the claims to cross compare against concert tuning. One of the references was a (presumably pirated) YouTube link to Black Sabbath's December 1970 concert in Paris. This concert was taped and broadcast by Granada Television in the UK a few months later, and has been subsequently bootlegged all over the place, though I believe it has never been officially released on video or DVD. The source, however, is the original television broadcast – the YouTube link just happens to be a convenient way of asserting its existence and the claims I make from it. What would you do in those circumstances? --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the uploader of the video and whether they had the rights or not. There's generally no way to tell – except that most "official" uploaders are clearly marked as such (and plastered with ads, heh). Basically, when it comes to copyvios, I'd tend to err on the side of caution and remove the Youtube link. OohBunnies! (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the only time we can be certain the content is permitted is when the youtube channel is linked to from the copyright holder's official website. There are also some obvious giveaways, such as craptastic quality, a shaky video of a concert, a handycam video of a TV screen, or the uploader is named buttmunch69 (unless perhaps it's music video from the famous Buttmunchers). I'm hoping the US Supreme court clarifies the linkvio ruling, since if you read it it's not actually clear what has been banned. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Is craptastic an oxymoron? -- :- ) Don 03:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

AFCH script – redirect type options

Would it be possible to include more options for the redirect type templates, such as including {{R from initialism}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is an option for typing in a custom template. Have you tried that? benzband (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I have been using it, but when there are different R from templates can can get annoying. Plus I think abbreviations are pretty comment redirect requests. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah… -|*.*|- benzband (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we can.<ref>Barak Obama</ref> (-.-) Since I don't review the redirect requests regular, please list the ones you need and I will add them to the list. We have added some additional decline reasons and a small copyedit of the interface and many more bug fixes in the beta script. When I get some feedback related to the new BLP stuff when accepting AFC submissions, I will push the update... mabdul 14:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks madul, could you please add the following:

{{R from initialism}}
{{R from misspelling}}

These are the two I've had to use which aren't on the AFCH list, althoguh there are a lot of them (Template:R template index). Would it also be possible to be able to select more then one and two. And when more than on is selected to have it placed inside Template:R template index. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Done in the Beta script. (see [1]) mabdul 20:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Jaan Kross, Estonian novelist – the Wikipedia entry

I would like to correspond with people who edit what I am writing about the Estonian author Jaan Kross, but I have not yet found my way around this website. Where do you actually look when you want to have a simple dialogue with the person(s) who edit, remove, challenge, etc., things you have written?

With regard to Jaan Kross, one major problem when trying to create a proper webpage when most of the pertinent information is not written in English. My mother-tongue is (British) English, but I have a reading knowledge of several other languages (e.g. Estonian, Finnish, Swedish, German, Dutch, and a little Russian). This means I can access a great deal more about Jaan Kross than you can find if you only know English. But you run into trouble with this eternally popping up sign about verification. As many Wiki-monitors may not be able to read the languages I have listed, you can often not verify the veracity of what I am writing by looking at the sources, as you can't read what is written there. As the world is not monolingual, entries would be severally limited if you only quoted things from English-language sources. In the case of Jaan Kross this would be a few reviews, biographical sketches, and obituary notices. One rather thorough article by Ian Thomson appeared in the Guardian (UK), but I have relied mostly on non-English-language sources, such as the 2009 biography of Kross by the Finn Juhani Salokannel, because I have recently obtained the Estonian translation. And Kross himself wrote about 1,000 pages of autobiography in two volumes, which have also only appeared in Estonian and Finnish translation, not two of the world's most accessible languages.

I would be grateful if someone would contact me directly at: (email address deleted) and explain a little about how I can continue to chat and discuss with monitors and others, because I still find navigating around this part of the website very difficult. Eric Dickens (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately we can't answer replies via email. To answer your question though, while we prefer English sources, if they are not available, then a link to the native-language source with a cursory translation may suffice. Click here to see some information about how we can manage non-English reliable sources. You can also click here to see a list of volunteers who are able to translate Estonian to English (for example).

Referring to the other part of your query, if somebody removes something you wrote, the best first step is to look at who did it, via the article's history, and then leave a message on their Talk Page asking them why they have done so. That should normally generate a response. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You can try Wikipedia:Teahouse for advice and assistance. The is also real time help available at Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help and if you have a specific issue with an article you can place {{helpme}} with you question below it on your talk page. Someone should respond in a short period of time. -- :- ) Don 16:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reference bloat

I recently failed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Universal Personal Number UPN for a number of reasons, one of which was sheer reference bloat – over 1,600. By contrast, today's featured article has 66 references, and a good article I reviewed yesterday has 145.

One of the problems I've found is when failing an article due to unreliable sources, there seems to be a tendency to add more references and resubmit, in the (presumably misguided) belief that it's the quantity rather than the reliability of the references. The result is you can end up with a single sentence that doesn't really assert any notability, and 10 or more references tacked on the end of it. For instance, I failed Geek & Sundry yesterday for this very reason (though I see it's since been fixed).

Is there any way we can educate people away from this? --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As it's not the most common of problems, I tend to think that leaving a comment on page is the best way. Also copy and pasting the comment to the user's talk page can help get the message through. It's not common enough for a decline reason, I wouldn't think. I'm not sure if there's anything specific in our various policy and guideline pages that deals with quantity of sources, for linking in comments. Perhaps someone else knows? OohBunnies! (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:Article length? mabdul 11:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't really mention sources, although somewhat relevant in that the draft with the thousands of sources made my poor browser all laggy. I guess we'll have to word our own comments. Just make clear about "quality over quantity" and really they only need enough sources to back up the statements in the article. :) OohBunnies! (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've found a couple of essays that describe what I'm talking about – WP:CITEKILL and WP:MASK. I guess my point is more towards preventing articles with reference bloat getting to review in the first place. --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Holy crap! I tried to look at the page in a normal mode on my phone, but I was thrown off of the Wake Forest wifi twice. Honestly, there is so many linke and technical jargon in there, it might be better to delete it all and start all over again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have a problem growing in sandboxes

I'm not sure why this is happening, but we seem to have an increasing number of multiple articles on the same subject being submitted from sandboxes. I have been moving some of them because it is quick and easy when I have a minute or two, but I don't know what to do any more with the duplicates. Do I number them John Smith (1), John Smith (2), John Smith (3)? Get them history merged into one article for submission? We also run the risk of approving a crappy one when there is a really good one sitting there. I'm clueless. Suggestions, ideas, is there a procedure? -- :- ) Don 01:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I normally move these submissions to Jon Doe 2, Jon Doe 3 (etc., so without brackets) if the submission is a new submission; otherwise I tag them with twinkle that the submission needs a history merge. mabdul 11:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't really serious about a history merge, but I guess if someone had the time, it could be done. I'm sure we would have some upset editors when they found their article had been merged and now they have to share it with 1 or 2 others. Considering it is the Wiki's property, let them be upset, if we get a better page. -- :- ) Don 19:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Request Edit templates

I'm trying to create a carbon copy of the AfC process (or close to it) for {{request edits}} so editors with a COI can submit content for review for articles that already exist. I need a lot of help on templates to get it up and running and thought someone from AfC might be able to help. I've started it here. The Talk page has some of the template work I've run into so far that I don't have the technical skills to do. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 22:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Nouniquenames jumped into this like a superhero. We're working on about 10 templates here. I think this could be a huge improvement for above-board COI on pre-existing articles (once we get people to use it). User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 06:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI Noun and I created some new templates into the {{request edit}} process to create an AfC-like review/approval/implementation process into requested edits by COIs. You can see the new documentation here and the template in use here. If anyone is interested in contributing to the request edit queue, it can now be done in a matter very similar to COI-submitted AfCs. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 18:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Black Monk of Pontefract (Poltergeist)

Any thoughts on this one? I'm not a judging anyone's beliefs, but I can't tell if this is a serious article or based on a fictional story. Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE _GROOVES 18:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can't find a reason to fail it, err on the side of letting it through. For me, a BBC article and a commercially published book are just about enough reliable sources to let it through the gates, but I would tag the article as {{npov}} and {{refimprove}}, tag everything bar the two sources above as {{unreliable}}, {{cn}} anything unreferenced that sounds debatable, then put {{WikiProject Paranormal}} (see here) on the talk page which would hopefully pick up second opinion. --Ritchie333 (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Nachtblut

Nachtblut, German Metal Band is missing from this wikipedia. See de:Nachtblut for informations. --87.158.131.132 (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You are quite welcome to translate the article for us, if you think it is important to have in the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Translation -- :- ) Don 15:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nachtblut – the article was deleted 2 years ago. Moreover I highly doubt (even as German after reading the German article) that it passes the notability criteria of the English Wikipedia. (see Wikipedia:Notability (music)) mabdul 15:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Feature request for afc tag / afch script – "Submission only contains primary sources"

Would it be possible to add a new category to decline AfC articles that only contain primary sources? I've seen quite a few today – I generally tag them as "unreferenced or referenced by unreliable sources" with some boilerplate text along the lines of "This article only contains primary sources. Wikipedia requires independent, reliable, secondary sources to establish notability of an article." I'm concerned that a primary source isn't necessarily an unreliable source, depending on context, which may confuse people. --Ritchie333 (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a tag for that, but not a decline. -- :- ) Don 15:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's so sad, that some reviewers played at the decline tag for |v= and changed the original decline reason dramatical without gaining a consensus here... mabdul 11:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I know this is not the correct place to ask, so yell at me.

I find on some of my watched articles, vandalism reverting. But the original vandalism does not show on the watch list. 99.9% of the time they are IP's. Are IP revisions ignored, or what? -- :- ) Don 05:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE SELECTED "HIDE ANONYMOUS USERS"! SOMEGUY1221 (TALK) 05:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, good idea, but not the case. And, no reason to shout. :'-( I'm stupid, but not that stupid. But, I guess I did say yell at me. -- :- ) Don 17:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the recent change patrollers are just really on the ball these days. ;P -- OohBunnies! (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liam McEwan

Just a head's up, I tried to review this (it looked like a perfect candidate to pass, to be honest) and the script threw a wobbly. Turns out that years and years ago somebody tried to create the article multiple times, and got the article name salted after too many speedy deletes. What's interesting is the subject of the article might not have been notable then, but is notable now. I have filed a DrV here – will be interesting to see what happens. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP may be a better venue than WP:DRV; after all, you want the page unprotected and don't argue that the old deletions were inappropriate. This should still work, though. Huon (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I went with WP:DRV because the root cause of it was multiple A7 CSDs. As you say, it should still get a response. Per WP:EOTW I don't normally go anywhere near the admin noticeboards and prefer to spend time looking at pictures of small cute animals instead! --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean with wobbly? As noted at WP:AFCH and WP:AFCH/DEV the error management isn't perfect, so what was shown? Please improve the doc pages! mabdul 14:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant the script reported that the page could not be created. There's nothing wrong with the script – it did what I expected it to do under those circumstances. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle Autobiography Welcome fixed

Thanks for handling that Nouniquenames. -- :- ) Don 03:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

long comment warning

When reviewing, I've been getting a caution, Please check the source code! This page contains a really long HTML comment!

When I do, the only comment is usually this boilerplate:

Can the script be modified to avoid false alarms on this particular long comment? Kilopi (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There was a change recently tht modified the boilerplate comment added, I'll get mabdul to write an exception. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 01:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sry, this is alreay in, but sadly only in the beta script which breaks some other stuff at the moment and I'm searching for a new job and thus not having the time to get the needed parts fixed, maybe I create tomorrow (or on sunday) a partial 'push' of my beta script to fix some nasty bugs before fixing the big ones. mabdul 01:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

To reiterate, this is stuck in beta until we write a few more patches. You can follow the directions at WP:AFCH to switch to beta, if you wish. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 17:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

afch broken?

AFCH seems to no longer be working (using Google Chrome 21.0.1180.57 on OS X Snow Leopard). This seems to be due to a JavaScript syntax error in line 976 of MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js – document.getElementById('afcHelper_get_teahouse) is missing a closing quote character. I'd fix the "live" version but I don't know how to – who does? --Ritchie333 (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yikes, that must be a bug in the new update. I'll fix it now. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 23:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Is the "review" tab appearing for other users? The "review" tab hasn't been working for me despite that I added the "Yet Another AfC Helper" code to User:SwisterTwister/vector.js. However, this may have been caused by my recent Mozilla Firefox update but I wanted to know if I wasn't the only user experiencing this. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It's relieving to know others are experiencing the same problem. It was working fine this morning. It's still not working as of now. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like User:DeltaQuad downgraded the script. It's fixed as of now. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I've contacted mabdul to look into the situation. @SwisterTwister: We changed how the script is loaded. It should still work, but to be on the safe side, delete the code and activate our new gadget in my preferences. Look at the section on installation here. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 17:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

'Move' link in submission template

A template at the top of every submitted article lists reviewer tools as "Reviewer tools[hide] Instructions • Silent Chain (talk: + bio) (log) • Move: To project space • Run Reflinks • Run Citation Bot • Search: Google, Bing, WP"

Does this "move to project space" make any sense? I'd presume the desired outcome would be to either move to article space (if the page is accepted) or leave the text where it is (if it is declined or still needs revision)? I presume most reviewers ignore this link, instead using WP:AFCH, but sending Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Pagename to Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Pagename is rarely desirable and I'm really not sure why this is the only 'move' link currently being displayed in the template. Presumably, the move target needs to simply be Pagename and not WP:AFC/pagename? K7L (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The "move to project space" function is useful when editors place the AFC template on a page in their userspace. It can also be used to move a submission from the default "Wikipedia talk" space to "Wikipedia" space in cases where a reviewer wants to add extensive comments about the submission. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 16:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The effect of Vitamin E & Lecithin on gout

Milton Ruiz; 9 August 2012:

Is there a correlation between gout and vitamins?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.81.129 (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You should try the reference desk for such questions. Our article on gout only notes a decrease of the gout risk due to vitamin C, though. Huon (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

standards

I have been reviewing accepted and declined articles, going day by day forward from July 1. My preliminary findings are very distressing. I consider the error rate at least 20%, equally divided in both directions, and even for the ones decided correctly, inadequate help to the new contributors is almost always provided. I'm not going to summarize them till I get further along, but you can see by my user contributions which accepted ones I have sent to AfD, and by my move log which declined ones I have moved to mainspace. (I'm not doing all the 20% I think wrong, just a few of what I consider the clearest examples.) I have for convenience been using the AfC helper tool when I accept, as it nicely cleans up the unnecessary messages. I could of course simply move using the normal move function and clean up manually, as could any Wikipedia editor.

I just now found a town article with adequate primary sources declined at AfC as not meeting notability .I moved it to mainspace, as the WP rule is that towns whose real existence is proven are always notable. Out of the articles on towns challenged at AfD over the last 2 or 3 years, not a single one whose real existence can be shown has been deleted.

My principle is that is that if is good enough not to be deleted by AfD when in mainspace, it's good enough to be accepted. (Some would say if it passes speedy, but I think that's wrong: we don't want to discourage new editors by accepting what will be promptly deleted at AfD .) The same criteria apply as for all WP articles. As for all WP articles, further improvement can and should be done by normal editing. The standards for notability and the other content guidelines are not set by AfC. AfC is not independent of Wikipedia; the general rules apply to everyone. If AfC uses a different standard, they are wrong to do so, just as any other project that uses a standard other than the general standards of the whole encyclopedia --but as far as I can tell, there is no practical AfC standard, for everybody there does just as they please, leaving whatever message they please, without bothering to pay individual attention to what they are doing.

The AfC process has asked for greater participation. They need to realize that if they get people from the experienced wp editors dealing with new pages, we will use our normal standards. I think they do indeed need more such people, for at this point only a minority of the reviewers seem to know Wikipedia well enough to review articles. If we can't get competent people here, we will need some other approach. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Jamesofur and I were discussing this just two or three days ago. We had strongly agreed with your sentiment, and I had even gotten up to the point of adding the line verbatim, "if is good enough not to be deleted by AfD when in mainspace, it's good enough to be accepted" to the reviewers information page. Good to see the evidence is in line with what's obviously going wrong here—nobody's explaining, everybody's boilerplating. Blurpeace 22:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that the minimum standard should be AFD; I've said this multiple times before and this is what I try to use when reviewing myself. A problem we have is that we treat AFC like a "one-man reverse-AFD" where reviewers are expected to apply AFD criteria without the consensus process that AFD provides. This would generally not be a problem, as reviewers can always comment on a submission and seek others' input, but many reviewers are new, enthusiastic editors who do not fully understand policy yet. They end up being – by virtue of their role as the first users to contact submitters – the explainers of policy to newbies. Another reviewer can always undo their decision, but this rarely happens given the size of the backlog, and people are only made aware of problematic reviewers when they are making consistent and serious mistakes.

Perhaps a more concentrated effort should be made to explain problematic aspects of policy to newer reviewers so they will not repeat the same mistakes? Incompetence is acceptable as long as it's the fixable kind of newbie incompetence, in my opinion. "Boilerplating" happens absolutely everywhere, not just at AFC; it is a form of laziness and, in our case, a way to speed up reviewing if used correctly. It is not easy to explain the same thing to different people a hundred times in one day. Obviously custom messages should be used as often as possible, but nearly all submissions fit into the same few problem spots. — Earwig ^talk 23:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I ditto Earwig here. I have made modifications to the script that will (hopefully) lessen the amount of custom declines. The bad part is we have really serious bugs in that same build that won't be addressed until Tuesday, leaving Wednesday as the earliest possible date for the code to be pushed to beta. I also was discussing updating the reviewer instructions to better state that the script is not an easy way out with Pol, who is currently on vacation. The amount of noobs who have joined up with the process is staggering, so I'm going to update those now. I think, to easily combat the noob attack, we need a minimum edit count required to join. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 00:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

DGG's message is blatantly clear. Enthusiastic, but poor work when attacking backlogs is in many ways far worse than not doing it at all. One must not forget that user retention is a core Foundation policy. Similar problems also cause concern at NPP. As long as no official requirements of experience are required for work on AfC and NPP, it is essential to maintain a high standard, and to help those editors fully understand the policies and guidelines before taking on such work. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#A concern for a current discussion, and see WP:CVU/A to see how the CounterVandalismUnit approaches such requirements. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The overall question is how to solve that. One idea would be to restrict the AFCH to (the existing?) reviewer right, but I do not like this idea... We could try to implement a two user review and marking the submissions (either within the submission template or on a separated page) that the accepted submission passed the 'reviewing criteria' by one reviewer. Although this would produce extra work (and maybe big changes to the script), it would solve the problem that some accepted drafts have to go to AfD (or even get 'CSDed). Of course that wouldn't solve the problem for declined drafts which should be accepted. mabdul 09:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Better education of new users/new page creators will clear up these problems once and for all when the Foudation's new landing page (on hold) is further developed and released, but at the moment some kind of system is urgently required. I'm not involved with the day-to-day running of AfC, but I am concerned about its horrific backlog and the staggering low quality reported by DGG. I don't know how many of the 223 members are regularly working on AfC or what their experience is, but several possible solutions spring to mind:

a user right. But creating more user rights is probably not the best road. The WMF has stated that ' we don't need a whole priesthood of gatekeepers' , a notion which I generally support; besides which, more rights just give rise to more hat collectors, and user rights should not be regarded as trophies.
as suggested by Mabdul (a suggestion I already made over a year ago), to use the existing 'Reviewer' right. However, 2 years ago over 5,000 reviewer rights were handed out indiscriminately, and without perm requests, based on some database logic that represented these criteria. It may be fair to assume that these people, if they are still around and active, would have the right experience by now, even if they didn't have it then. That said, that pool of potential manpower exists, and perhaps a newsletter to them all would bring some results. After all, it will probably only require 50 editors doing 10 AfC reviews each to bring the current situation under control.
Some other form of encouragement, for example see how the GOCE organises their drives, and especially the WP:WPURBLP (which I also worked on) that cleaned up nearly 52,000 articles in 12 months making the project defunct today. Maybe their former member list would also provide some possible targets for recruitment.
The CVU has launched a training academy, but 1. it's very new, and it's results need to be evaluated first, and 2. it would take the AfC probably too long to get something set up on similar lines.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this project, but an occasional contributor to Wikipedia for about 7 years, let me offer you my thoughts :

Newcomers to the project are going to make mistakes. A test page with crap is easy. An article with no references is easy. A copyvio that links to the original is easy. A band article that's got 8 sources, but only 2 can be reasonably considered reliable is harder, and it probably takes experience to make a good judgement call. You've just got to accept mistakes happen and deal with them.
Related to the above, what's important isn't to much that somebody makes a mistake, but are they likely to do it again and again? We need to be looking at the first derivative ie: how much better people are getting over time, rather than what their competence is at any minute.
If somebody passes an AfC review that shouldn't, silently revert it back to userspace and tell the reviewer why it shouldn't have passed. Don't just wave at policy – explain exactly what the issue is and why. AfDs can be quite controversial at times – just look at how much mudslinging the 'x on Twitter' articles got when they were AfDed – so you should expect the same to happen with the odd AfC too.
If somebody declines an AfC, but you can't think of any reason not to pass it, (I like the "If you wouldn't vote delete on an AfD, let it through" guideline) add another review tag, pass it, and tell the reviewer why their reasons for decline were invalid. Again, don't wave at policy, but politely point out why their arguments were flawed.
Recently, there was a GA Review drive, to reduce the backlog of reviews there. A number of mentors were available to assist new reviewers. Why can't we do the same here?

--Ritchie333 (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I try to follow the reviewer instructions. Basically, If I can not find a valid reason to reject the article, I accept it. That does not mean that another reviewer, or some macho dude with AFD tattooed on his chest will not find a reason. -- :- ) Don 18:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That it will be possible to create a landing page for new users that will solve all the problems seems rather unlikely to me -- & if that is the intention, it's so ambitious a goal that the Foundation will never finish it. That we or they can make something to help the process a little is a much more realistic goal; it will, like other things here, be improved by experience. I agree with what Ritchie reminded us, that it is much more important to get people trained so they do it better in the future than to worry overmuch about the fate of a few individual articles. In terms of errors, what we do not delete now can be deleted tomorrow; a new user once lost will never return. As for a temporary fix, I recall our experience with unsourced BLPs--a concentrated drive cleared up the backlog. (I said at the time I did not think the drive would succeed, but succeed it did. An initial burst of enthusiasm for fixing something can apparently work wonders.) Backlogs are demoralizing, both to reviewers and contributors. Perhaps trying to get up to current status by September might be possible. I'll try to concentrate my work here, and what we need to do is persuade a few other people likely to already know the guidelines and be highly productive. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I do share your thought that a perfect landing page would probably be utopian, but my main concern is that there isn't one at all – the Article Creation Wizard, for example, is an entirely path to creation and I don't see it is used very much, again, although it page presentation at first look appears to be more interactive it tends to present the newcomer with oo many walls of text to wade through. Even a splash screen a with some basic guidelines as soon as a new user has registered, or when an IP logs on would help. This would also curb the (what think is irrational) the well intended but basically pointless welcoming templates on all new registered accounts until is is known what kind of edits they are going to use – if indeed they ever edit anything at all. I believe that there are in fact around 14 million registered accounts. They can't all be editing. The BLP cleanup is an excellent example of how a drive could work to get this backlog down.

I think 'some macho dude with AFD tattooed on his chest will not find a reason' is an unfortunate choice of terminology to use here. Lack of experience (and perhaps maturity) is the main issue, and the fact that NPP, AfC, RfA, CVU, and other 'management' meta areas are a magnet for some new users who seem to think that the way to begin their Wikipedia career is as a kind of web forum 'moderator'. This needs to be changed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the key differences with the BLP cleanup is it had a very obvious set of criteria (no references, no evidence of active improvement) which were pretty easy to identify and blitz through. I don't think you can apply that to the AfC backlog, where it takes a lot more of a concerted effort to check things. Also, the targets of the BLP cleanup were all "unwatched" articles with nobody claiming any interest, whereas with an AfC article, if it doesn't meet the requirements, it tends to get declined again and again and again until it finally passes or the creator gives up, spending most of its time in the queue. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that wake up call DGG. I'm aware of several aspects that make AFC a tougher way to create articles than doing so the conventional way, and yet for anyone other than an IP this should be the easier way (for IPs it is the only way). I've even seen articles declined because the refs were not inline cites! My preference is that we merge the processes and take article work into mainspace where it is supposed to be and where these articles will be more likely to get collaborative editors. The key changes that we need before we can move AFC into mainspace are to stop autopatrolling any new article after thirty days and to mark unpatrolled new articles as {{Noindex}}. We are getting both of those features as part of the revised new page system and I would propose we take advantage of that and after that system has gone live we restrict AFC to IP article creators only. At one bound that would solve all the problems of Categories not being allowed in AFC, and gnomish activities like typo fixing not happening so much because some of the bots are mainspace only. Ideally I'd go further, mark all unpatrolled articles as "draft of new article" and change new page processing from a single filter to a double one. So instead of the ambiguous <Mark as Patrolled> you would have the choice of either clicking <Goodfaith> or <Ready for Mainspace> and just as we currently have editors with AutoPatroller status we could have a flag for <Goodfaith> article creators once we've seen that they aren't creating attack pages. That would make it easier for people like me to focus on deleting attack pages ASAP, and leave a more leisurely process for the Goodfaith but often not notable stuff to be given due consideration before it goes or gets patrolled.

Having NoIndex in mainspace as the new AFC will be less bitey for newbies, and gets rid of all that templating and moving malarkey.

To be really radical I'd like to suggest that we take an element of AFC practice into mainspace – until an article has a reliable source it doesn't get fully patrolled. Currently it is a ridiculous anomaly that an unreferenced article on a 1920s footballer will get into mainspace if it say he is dead but deleted per BLPprod if it lacks that info and in either event it would fail AFC as unreferenced. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

the 1920s footballer without a reference will or at least should go onto regular Prod, and be deleted 3 days earlier than BLP Prod. The only point of BLP Prod is that it is sticky, and cannot be removed without adding a reference. BLP Prod was only adopted because of concern that the unreferenced articles on living people might be so harmful that we needed to be certain. (I cannot recall any case where this actually mattered, but it is only fair to say that I was strongly opposed to BLP Prod as unnecessary complication & have seen nothing since then to change my mind.) The same argument of potential harm does not apply to any other class of article.

But to follow up on your more general points. Essentially, the argument for limiting AfC to ip authors is effectually saying that AfC used as widely as now, is a failure. I agree. It will be hard enough getting one patrol process working right. But what we need to do now, immediately, and then for whatever articles go through whatever AfC process continues, having the articles listed in NPP instead of escaping it. I do not know if it can be done technically, but otherwise it will need to be done manually. AfC accepted articles very much need to go to NPP, because the NPPatrollers, even most of the novices, are looking at them differently--not just to weed out the junk, but to place the necessary tags for improvement. I do not think there is anything stopping an AfC reviewer from doing this also, but few or none of them do. The improvement tags are not just window dressing. They do eventually get followed up, and in the meantime serve as a warning to readers. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well DGG, I filed this bug five years ago. Vote it up! Someguy1221 (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

@DGG An unreferenced article is at risk of being prodded, but such prods can be declined and if the person is genuine and they played at the appropriate level it should survive and may even get referenced (if someone makes a goodfaith attempt to reference it and fails then the prod would be unlikely to be declined by anyone but the author). Now my preference is that we change our newpage systems radically so that such an article would sit in mainspace but be noindexed until someone referenced it. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Prod. Twinkle produces a log of a person's prod nominations ,from which it is very easy to see whether they have actually been deleted. This potentially fills one of the significant gaps in the system: the problem now, is getting people to check it.

Moved articles What the foundation will not develop for us, we can perhaps find a workaround. I think we can find a manual method to select the material from the move log. Once I get that right, it can probably be made into a bot--but even the manual work may not be too great. We can then set up a page parallel to the NPP page on our own account. This unfortunately means there will be a second place to check, but it is still easier than checking the category pages of AfC articles. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that many patrollers even know that they can create their own PROD & CSD logs. Perhaps it should be mentioned on the WP:NPP – I'll look into it, people need to know it exists and how to set it up in Twinkle. It would be good if the NewPagsFeed had a proper preferences panel, and this were an option to be created from it. The existing NPF prefs needs a lot more filter options too.

I tried to have a meeting in DC to get some feed back on what the Foundation will or not develop for us, but it kind of didn't work out. I think moved pages should be viewable from the NewpagesFeed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

if you believe your article has been rejected in error

The current wording of the templates is:

You are encouraged to make improvements by clicking on the "Edit" tab at the top of this page. When you are ready to resubmit, click here.
If you require extra help, ask a question at the help desk. There is also a live help chat with experienced reviewers.

Perhaps this should be worded to ask "if you believe your article has been rejected in error, please ask at the help desk instead of merely resubmitting the same unchanged text again" and to advocate resubmitting an article only if it has been changed to fix an identified issue.

Certainly, the huge WP:AFC backlog does mean that reviewers have to wade through large quantities of self-promotional submissions from non-notable people and businesses to find the few good new articles, and with several hundred pages sitting in backlog it's inevitable that the amount of review time available per-page drops with a corresponding increase in error rates. The current wording attempts to not WP:BITE by using carefully-worded language which encourages authors to keep resubmitting pages – whether or not they're fixable. (A lack of wikification, detail, formatting or footnotes is fixable and a rewrite should be encouraged, a self-serving advertisement for a non-notable commercial firm is typically not.)

Conversely, there needs to be a quick way to appeal a mistaken decision if reviewers mistakenly flag a valid source as unreliable or a well-known subject as non-notable. The "resubmit" button slips the article into the very bottom of the pile, where it won't be seen for at least a week and will then be displayed with the original rejection tags to increase the change of another knee-jerk rejection. Directing the "why was my page rejected" enquiries to somewhere where they will be answered reasonably quickly (such as the help desk) could reduce the number of resubmitted pages, cutting down on both backlog (as many articles are pointless resubmissions) and time taken to fix an erroneous review. K7L (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that changing the wording to something that more strongly encourages them to make edits before resubmitting would be beneficial. I'm not so sure about an "appeals" process though. We're talking about peer reviews here, not some sort of arbitration process. I think there's a fairly good chance that when someone eventually resubmits it will be reviewed by a different editor than the first time.

If we had separate process for "appealing" it would be a whole other layer and would imply that AFC reviewers are incompetent. In the rare case where an editor makes so many bad AFC decisions that it's abusive, it tends to end up at AN/I. [Example]. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 21:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

First, I do not think this rare at all--I think it amounts to at least 10% of the submissions. And I cannot see why AN/I would be involved,; as no administrative action is called for. What is called for is the decision to be reversed, which can be done by any editor, and , if there is a pattern that the reviewer be instructed, which can also be done by any good faith editor. Only if the pattern shows such bad faith that a block might be necessary would an admin be involved, and , critical though I am of the program, I have not see this yet. I think the implication that many AfC reviews are incompetent is a valid extrapolation from the data. This is not intended as a moral failing, --it is usually the fault of their having gotten engaged in this process too early on. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

BAfC category contrary to policy

I notice the category Category:AfC submissions declined as needing footnotes, where the message reads "The content of this submission includes material that meets Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.". This is quite confused:the intended meaning sure is that it contains material that does not the meet the minimum standard for citations.. As a general statement the way it is used it is contrary to policy as given at WP:V and WP:RS and WP:CITE, and the very page referred to, the information page, which is not even a guideline, Wikipedia:Inline citation. There is no general need for a WP article to have inline citations, and if this is the only reason an article is taken to AfD the article will not be deleted. I repeat the general agreement above that if an article would pass AfD , it should pass AfC . In most cases such citations are desirable; is some few cases, usually involving negative BLP or matters under dispute or actual quotations they are indeed necessary, but as a general rule inline citation are just one of the acceptable means of providing verifiability. The 1000 or so articles in that category have almost all been wrongly refused, and need to be reviewed. I think probably 90% of them will show a valid reason for refusal, and should be marked accordingly. Anyone using this category incorrectly needs a reminder of WP policy. Given the magnitude of the problem, how shall we proceed? DGG ( talk ) 09:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't obviously see any that I've declined purely for this reason, but I've picked through one or two in the list that I've previously glanced at, and the lack of footnotes seems to only a be an ancillary problem such as the article not really establishing any notability, there's not enough references, everything's a primary sources such as Facebook or Twitter, or none of the references really talk about the article's subject at all, at least enough to verify the statements made in the article. For instance, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/1960 CHUM Chart Number 1 Hits was declined as ilc, but I've just adjusted the decline again under v, as the only source is a blog.

I have certainly passed through articles tagged with {{nofootnotes}}, {{wikify}}, {{unreferenced}} for a specific section and {{refimprove}}, amongst others. As regards the ilc tag on {{AFC}}, it's no longer appears to be supported in AFCH, so hopefully this problem will long term disappear. For the short term, I'd recommend going through the category and either swapping ilc for another tag, or removing the decline so it reappears in the active queue. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This was an old decline reason that was supposed to be used for declining BLPs that failed WP:MINREF. It was misused a lot, so the decline reason was removed from the AFCH script in a patch about two months ago (v4.1.9 if I remember right). It may be added back with a better explanation of when it should be used in a later patch. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 19:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ted Rand

I request an article on the great boo illustrator, Ted Rand. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Go to WP:RA for that. This is a discussion page for WikiProject Articles for creation. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 19:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I got it started at Ted Rand User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 02:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The bloody sortable list has disappeared again.

Where is that count Earwig?. I think when this happens, we should just redirect the submissions page directly to the category list instead of changing all the wording in the submissions page. But we still need a metric. Yes, no? -- :- ) Don 05:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The lag is gone, so it must be an issue with the bot. I'll tell Earwig. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 01:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no issue with the bot, and you can just go to WP:AFC/ST directly for the list. I've been too busy with other things to add a count feature. — Earwig ^talk 02:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Understand, np Earwig. Nathan, there is a limit in mediawiki to the size of total expanded templates on a page. When the statistics gets too large to display, it just doesn't. You can still click on the link to AfC Statistics at the bottom or use that AfC submissions list. I've just been trying to have it take you where you need to be in one click, but we have no parameter for lag or for the size of the statistic template in order to switch the page. -- :- ) Don 03:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Checked your list Earwig. They don't pay you enough. -- :- ) Don 03:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I found the issue. MediaWiki won't allow extremly large templates to transclude. You can still use the direct template, though. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 22:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought I said that. -- :- ) Don 04:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

FFU Templates at Commons

Hi. I noticed that our WP:FFU talk page banner (Template:WPAFCF) does not exist at Wikimedia Commons. Would anyone object if I import the File for upload banner for use when FFU requests satisfy Commons license requirements? —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 03:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

At FFU we simply tag the files which were uploaded at Commons, at the local talk page. mabdul 04:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying it would be inappropriate to have a template on the talk page at Commons as well? I thought it might be useful... —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 04:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if anyone could voice whether they would support or oppose my plan to import the template before doing it...I wouldn't do it unless there is consensus. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 19:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL? Hey, we have a) no deadline and b) private lives; But I just got Internet access in my hotel, so: What's the need of spamming Wikimedia COmmons with ENWP templates? mabdul 20:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't mean anything by it, mabdul, sorry if you felt I was rushing you. Just meant it for anyone who might have been unclear as to what I was asking. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 23:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think we need such a thing. We don't need to organize old accepted subs, and we don't need to advertise on another project. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 20:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nathan2055, not necessary. Also if you import the banner than you would need to import many other templates, because this uses them. Like: {{WikiProject Articles for creation}} and every template you see on this page under the "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page:" text.. Not worth the hassle. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 07:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think technically it would be a problem (the "interwiki import" function makes it pretty easy to transfer templates) but if nobody else thinks it would be useful I won't bother. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 16:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

So still the question why to add a banner at commons where this project doesn't exists... Keep in mind: Commons is a complete separated project which has nothing to do with enwp and has independent (sometimes strange) rules. mabdul 12:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine, I see your point (and withdraw my proposal). I'm a bit new to FFU and didn't realize it was acceptable to make local talk pages for an image hosted on commons. Cheers! —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 14:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

AFC submission showing in Google Search

Some (claiming to be the subject of the article) left a message on my talk page, that the submission showed in Google searches. The g-web version of the declined submissions does [2] and [3]. Is there something we can do about this? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a __NOINDEX__ magic word which can remove a page from Google spidering.K7L (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem is that is as g-webs version so I can't login or edit the page. Anyone who can it's the following two pages: [4] & [5]. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

We have noindex saved in the AfC template. The major problem is that there is no method to tell forks not to crawl AfC space pages. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 16:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That is the g-webs wikipedia mirror, we don't have any access there; It's using our content, so we can't do anything since you all released your edits under GFDL and CC-BY-SA 3.0. mabdul 21:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggest we rename Twinkle to Tinkle

Thanks to Nouniquenames one problem with Twinkle got fixed. It seems Twinkle does not only wants to bite the Newbies, but peel their skin off and rip their gust out through their anus.(anuses, ani?) I just welcomed a user with Twinkle who's article had been declined, and Twinkle said: "Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted."

I'm going to rip Twikle's guts out thorough his/her/its anus if it has one. -- :- ) Don 05:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Just waded through MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js and the template called was {{first article}} as {{subst:first article|$ARTICLE$|$USERNAME$}}. I am tempted to just change the tag at the end from ~~may soon be deleted~~ to read may not be retained. This would seem to still fit when editors have placed an improper page into article space (which would potentially be deleted or not retained), but it also fits for declined AfC submissions. Does that sound agreeable (and reasonable)? --Nouniquenames (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, thanks Nouniquenames. I just hate biting newbies. Unless they are cute, but it's hard to tell from here. -- :- ) Don 07:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

i need help

How would a fluid with a high solute concentration affect osmotic pressure when compared to just water which has no solutes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.144.121 (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This page is for people working on the AfC project. You should try the reference desk instead. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Strange new language discoverd

I have some editor throwing words at me like Noodletools, Google Scholar, TED, MN2020-a. Can somebody 40 years younger or so, handle this? All this new-fangled speak making me psychotic. -- :- ) Don 03:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Institute on the Environment and User talk:Dcshank#Rejected article Thanks dudes and dudettes. -- :- ) Don 03:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a referance for every presidential campaign slogan on wikipedia, except for obama 2012 ?

ANSWER Because any educated person would recognise it as this most commonly used communist slogan,.. in the history of communism. Which would then cause any cross referencing search engine to bring up obama's statment about redistributing wealth, being a direct quote from the communist manifesto, written by Karl Marx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moadib420 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what Obama quote about the redistribution of wealth you mean, possibly this one? We also don't have an article on Obama's 2008 slogan but just a section in the 2008 campaign article; there's no mention of any slogans in the Al Gore 2000 campaign article. The slogan is mentioned both in the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 article (with a reference) and the list of U.S. presidential campaign slogans (which is almost unsourced, not just for this slogan). If you think a more thorough discussion of the slogan is in order, Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 would be the place to make such a proposal. If you believe we need an entire article (which, to the best of my kowledge, we don't have for any other presidential campaign slogan), please use the article wizard. However, we once had an article on the slogan and it was decided to redirect it. This page is the wrong venue for such proposals anyway. Huon (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

AfC Submissions

I was thinking it might be a good idea to save us time and to save the servers time, that the Submissions tab in AfC point to Category:Pending AfC submissions rather than the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions which is more or less broke most of the time lately. We can still have a link to the sortable list on the category page. In either case right now, the sortable list is 2 clicks away and Category:Pending AfC submissions is 2 clicks away. It will then be one click. I think we are sucking up a lot of server time every time we go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions because it tries to generate the list each time, but aborts. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Yeh/nay on the page swap? -- :- ) Don 13:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the list is broken per se – it's still alive and well at Template:AFC statistics. My understanding is it's just become too big to transclude into WP:AFC/S correctly. However, I've just started going directly to WP:PAFC in the search box now because of the reason you describe. Provided WP:PAFC can link to WP:AFC/S, it's probably worth doing. The list is still useful as a summary of what's going on anyway. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I go directly to Template:AFC statistics and CAT:PROD. KTC (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Another way of cracking this is to split the template into multiple ones – pending, reviewed, accepted and declined. That should tip it back under the transclusion limit. I've got the technical chops to do this, but I'd want to chat with The Earwig first. What do other people think? --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an idea, but if they are on the same page, maybe not. I think there is limit to the total expansion on any particular page of 10 MBs I think. The info is at Mediawiki site. -- :- ) Don 14:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I just checked the page. Appears to be 2 MB. AFC Statistics by itself is now going over limit the last 20-30 entries were dropped. -- :- ) Don 14:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you can't go over the post-expand include size it seems (and the raw HTML in WP:AFC/S reports it as such). Still, another solution could be to only ever display the top 400 of anything. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Or we could have The Earwig reduce the count to the last 24 hours. -- :- ) Don 17:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I can make the swap, only take a minute, if people start screaming, just revert. -- :- ) Don 17:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't do last 24 hours – you want the oldest stuff on the list, as that's what people will complain about when they write "I submitted my article 5 days ago – why hasn't it been reviewed?" on the help desk. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It just reports the changes in the last 24 hours, currently it's 48 hours. -- :- ) Don 18:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The current setup is to show all pending submissions plus submissions accepted or declined in the past 36 hours (that's currently a bit unclear, sorry). Splitting up the template into multiple pages is an interesting idea, but I'd advise against it since 1) the bot would be making two or three times as many edits, theoretically using up even more resources; 2) there would still be no easy way to view all the info at once; 3) the bulk of the space is taken up by pending submissions, and I don't think that chart would get much smaller by removing declines and accepts. Additionally, we've been having problems due to high m:Toolserver replag, but that seems to be heading down at the moment. Only displaying the top X submissions could also be a good idea, but how do we decide which to display? I'm apprehensive about restricting to, say, the oldest first, since the chart would become less useful for fast reviewing of new submissions (by sorting by smallest first or unsourced), which I find to be one of its best uses. — Earwig ^talk 00:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Repeat submissions

What, if anything, can be done about editors who continue to submit a draft article without dealing with the issues that led to the previous decline? for example see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Julia Datt which has now been declined 5 times. DES ^(talk) 18:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've referred this to WP:COIN. Mangoe (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. See also Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Internews Europe which doesn't have an obvious COI problem but does seem to have a submitter who doesn't quite get it.DES ^(talk) 21:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I replied twice to Internews Europe-related questions on the help desk; I'd say the sources have improved since then, but not sufficiently to pass. If they continue to improve at this rate, it may pass in a month or two... Huon (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

For issues like this, I just CSD it for being disruptive after the third time of being submitted without being improved. It works great when you keep running into the article, but I would be more cautious if five different editors are using the same reason, as then you just look like a dick. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No, not 'CSDing. Better request page protection for (say) a week or so. Keep in mind: we trying to find new contributors and articles. (if it is granted, leave a talkpages message, maybe we create a template for that). mabdul 00:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

we can leave a talkpage message without making a template of our own. Just use the regular twinkle system for warnings. It works fine. The virtue of such a warning is that it leaves a record for future action if the ed. does not improve. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Orbitrap

I inadvertently used the wrong decline template on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Orbitrap – the article already exists in mainspace; it's not duplicated in AfC. I'm just going off-line for few hours; please clean up after me. *trout*. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Done with a free trout. Mdann52 (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Going.... Insane :)

With the recent boatload (and I mean boatload – even the archives have unchecked submissions!) of submissions over at WP:AfC/R, I think that the inevitable is finally appearing... the problem of not be able to accept requests for multiple redirects (in one submission) using the Helper tool. Is this something that can be done? Remotely possible? Just throwing this into the hat... Theo polisme _:) 06:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not at all unhappy about the unchecked submissions in the archives. WP:AFC/R has been extremely busy over the past week or so, and the "unchecked" ones are the redirects and categories I consider somewhere between bad ideas and useless make-work (Six redirects for an almost-unsourced article about a single football game? And that for every single such game for the past century?) without technically meeting the criteria for a decline, or those that were declined once and which got re-submitted with a rationale I found neither convincing nor worth arguing over. So if someone else really wants to create those redirects, feel free – I'm effectively boycotting some, but I'm looking at all submissions. Huon (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I was about to post a topic on this. This patch is stuck in beta because mabdul is on vacation. I can't push the patch because it breaks article reviewing. Until mabdul gets back, we're really stuck unless I try to solve the problem on my own. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 02:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Big query

Why are the putative article pages in talk space? If they were in WP space then we could discuss them, as it is discussion is fragmented on the AFC page, the user's talk page and the various places they go for help. Rich Farmbrough, 14:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC).

Technical reason: because IPs can't create WP pages. We have a move button for the case you want to discuss anything. mabdul 14:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, that makes a crazy kind of sense. Rich Farmbrough, 14:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC).

Bot discussion: automatic sorting for sandbox submissions

I'm working to write a bot to categorize submissions that aren't in AfC space for moving by humans. Basically, this would help make attacking the backlog easier as you can easily see which submissions need moving. I'm creating this post to discuss whether such a bot should be created. Please respond with your thoughts. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 20:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Something constructive would be if it cleaned them and moved them. What language are you using? If I had any time, I might lend a hand. -- :- ) Don 04:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be using Python, through the pywikipediabot framework. I just got back in school, so I might be delayed quite a bit, but I would appreciate any help I could get. I'll see about setting up an account on GitHub to open-source everything. The other thing is that so many people submit articles on pages like User:Example/sandbox that it would require a massive amount of artificial intelligence to correctly move such pages. That's why it would be easier to categorize them and make a new backlog, rather than break an existing one. Thanks, --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 20:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

So, a little bit of an update. I'm waiting on getting a new computer and loading Ubuntu on it so I can get started developing! When I get that done, I will begin work on NathanBot. Dcshank as told me in IRC that he would like to help, anyone else interested? --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 00:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Uuuhm, no. ^^ Not with Python, ask Sigma why. ^^ mabdul 00:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Why? Python's great! --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 21:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

AFC statistics status errors

Twice now I have selected an article from the yellow colored area of {{AFC statistics}} (the rows supposed to be pending review), only to get the message "Article not currently submitted for review." This currently happens with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexander Cardinale. Is the template not picking up the status correctly? Or what is going on? DES ^(talk) 22:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Templates were at the bottom, I moved one and deleted balance. -- :- ) Don 01:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Blame Petrb, he runs the bot that's supposed to update that. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 21:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually that is Earwig's bot (called Earwigbot)... mabdul 22:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My bot just compiles the statistics. It's Petrb's bot that is supposed to remove the draft template and move the pending template to the top. — Earwig ^talk 22:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Request Edits

I wonder if we could borrow someone from AfC for the {{request edit}} queue. Noun and I spent a bit of time expanding Template:Request edit to create an AFC-like system of decline and accept templates, but I noticed substantial content submissions aren't being processed well (3-5 weeks in some cases).

The request edit queue is very small compared to AfC, so I don't mean to draw too much attention to it. Just an editor or two with experience reviewing COI submissions. I've been managing the queue a little, mostly by closing completed requests and fixing it when people use the wrong template, but it's odd for me as a COI to actually approve reasonable content from other COIs. It's possible I'm just being impatient. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 01:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Mmmh, maybe ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch? mabdul 00:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Several requests, including all but one request more than a few days old, cleared out. DES ^(talk) 04:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I updated the CARE response with a template for declining major rewrites that haven't been discussed first and the Rudolph Hass with a template for declining requests that aren't specific enough. I'm confused about your comment that everything has been cleared out. I'm looking at:

McKinsey History – 17 days
K&L Gates request – 14 days since posted here.
SAS Institute request – 11 days
Public Interest Registry request – 7 days

Since many of the remaining are mine, I don't know how to ask without sounding demanding or rude, but am I doing something wrong causing mine to be overlooked, while others are completed? Maybe I am being impatient or it is because the contributions are large. These all use the new template for major COI contributions, so I wonder if the template is not working properly as far as putting them in the queue. Just trying to figure it out. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 16:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I was basing my comments on the table at Template:Request edit/COIinstructions#Current requested edits. It seems that some requests are not being picked up by this bot-maintained table, I don't know why. In particular, only the 1st of the 4 you list above are being picked up. I will admit that a large rewrite or major addition i am less likely to do in a hurry than a more limited edit. DES ^(talk) 21:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Aha! That explains it. Very odd – the {{request edit|R}} template for requesting re-writes and larger COI contributions – the requests show up on COIN and in the request edit category, but not on the bot-created table. I'm not sure if it's a problem with the bot of the template. In any case, if anyone has time to look them over and accept/reject I would appreciate it. My articles for SAS & McKinsey have both been vetted by multiple editors with an interest in the subject and the Public Interest Registry is pretty straightforward. User:King4057 01:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the bot maintainer, he expects to find {{request edit}} on pages in the Talk: namespace only, and the bot only looks there. He also said that the K&L Gates page currently has no active request edit template -- I haven't double checked yet. DES ^(talk) 13:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see, the K&L Gates is located here. This isn't mine, but I moved the request edit to his page (thought I was helping). It gets really crowded, messy and tough to follow when entire drafts are on the Talk page. Is there a way to fix the bot so it picks them up or should we just keep the templates on the Talk page? User:King4057 18:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving the draft is fine, probably a good idea, but i think you should leave the {{request edit}} on the talk page with a link to what ever temp page the draft is on. That is I suspect a lot simpler than changing the bot, but you can ask the bot maintainer at User talk:AnomieBOT. DES ^(talk) 18:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. I moved the request edits to Talk pages with links to the draft. I'll start using that in my janitorial work as well. User:King4057 18:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

name of box present on top of M.S paint screen

name of box present on top of M.S paint screen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.204.27 (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 21:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the origin of a spider?

I am researching the origin (s) of spider or arthropod? Can I get help?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.160.161 (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on spider evolution. Questions of a general nature are better suited to the reference desk. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to sort AFC by subject?

There are so many AFCs. Is there a sorting of any kind that someone can link me to by subject?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, however AfC submissions are sorted by date and status at Category:WikiProject Articles for creation. SwisterTwister talk 00:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I try to work on particular subjects, but the only way at present to do this is to hover over the article title and see the first few words. There is an available new page sorting system to notify workgroups & produce lists. User:TedderBot/NewPageSearch; it might be adaptable. I've asked the bot-owner. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are people using the sandbox???

What i am seeing more often is that more users are summiting their articles through their sandboxes, instead of the article wizard, This is becoming a big problem. Is there someone out there that can create a bot (to automaticly send a message to the creater of the article), or edit the "When to decline a submission" and add one more to the list of criteria for the denial of the article (because it was created in the sandbox). Dominicskywalker (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a problem at all. A bot moves sandbox pages that are up for review to the Articles for Creation area, or you can move them yourself.

I really don't understand how this is a problem. That's what sandboxes are partly for. OohBunnies! (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Before we go that far though, is creating and submitting from a personal sandbox even "against the rules"? I know it can be a bit of a hassle for reviewers, but I didn't know we actually discouraged it... Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 16:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Huch? You getting here in contact with very new contributors who don't likely know where and how to start a new article. We have created a consensus to at {{usersandbox}} a button that these sandboxes go through AfC and not moved directly or get lost at the userspace. Moreover we had a bot moving submission with {{userspacedraft}}, but that fails to do with these sandbox submissions because of the naming conflicts. Out of what reason should we decline a sandbox submission only because it is not moved correctly/at the wrong place? mabdul 16:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is understandable that users would use their sandbox if they feel more comfortable and as mentioned, aren't aware that AfC space is the best place for the submission(s). I should also note that User:ArticlesForCreationBot will move AfC submissions. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was working at building a bot to sort all those sandbox subs, but it's on hold until I get my new computer. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 23:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I recently enjoyed reviewing the sandbox articles because they seem to be the most troublesome including malformed text, vandalism, etc. SwisterTwister talk 01:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually found a diamond in a sandbox: How I Braved Anu Aunty and Co-Founded A Million Dollar Company -- :- ) Don

Request to help a new user

Could someone more familiar than I with new users take over the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Twitter users in India? This is a new user who's obviously keen to help, but I feel I'm having some trouble getting the concept of encyclopedia vs indiscriminate collection across to them. Per my initial comments on the AFD in question, I'm aware that this falls under WP:BITE and made a conscious decision to do so anyway (any decision to keep would have set a major precedent, and and delay in deletion would have resulted in a lot of wasted work on the part of the creator); however, because I'm the biter I'm probably not the most appropriate person to be having the discussion. Mogism (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Problems

During my participation in the cleanup this weekend, I discovered quite a few problems, some in the system, some in the way people are using it. First, the system.

There is one particularly critical software problem. If the article is deleted, because of copyvio or blatant promotionalism, the message to the user still says to look at the original submission for an explanation. But the original submission will no longer be there, and any comments there will not be visible. The message goes on to say to continue editing the article at the original submission but there will be no submission to edit. Once I realized this, I began editing the form message myself, and copying my comments onto the editor's talk page.
Less critical, but pervasive and totally confusing. The comments on the article are placed on the submission page; the editor is merely referred there. This is about as indirect and as non-intuitive as imaginable. The comments are intended to help the author, and should be placed on his page. WhatI have been doing, is when I think I have something substantial to say, is copying them over manually,and adding them below the automatic notice.
The form messages are singularly unhelpful,
1. usually there are multiple problems. Twinkle now has a very intuitive interface for specifying this, and it is a big help at CSD.
2. Many of the messages are based upon the csd reasons. But for notability in particular, there are many other similar reasons that don't affect csd, though they do affect the suitability for accepting an article into mainspace: non notable books, for example aren't a speedy reason, but do apply here.
3. Some of the speedy reasons, like lack of context very rarely apply to AfC , but they clutter up the list
4. Nonnotable person is much too unspecific. Just as twinkle does, it should at least specify the relevant part of the criterion--athlete, or prof, or whatever.
5. The bias should be towards providing a specific reason in addition to the general ones. The point of AfC is to guide the user into getting the article acceptable if possible. Sometimes the submission is so impossible that there is no pint in bothering giving advice, but at least half the time, there is at least a possibility of an article, and advice is needed, not WP buzzwords.
6. The message about inline refs needs to be changed to accommodate the WP policy that refs are needed, but not inlinerefs except in special cases. People should be advised to use them, but they should not normally be told they must use them, nor should articles be rejected for that reason.
When there are multiple steps, the sequence is often unclear. This is especially true when there are simultaneously messages saying that the article is not yet being submitted for review, and a message saying it has been submitted & even declined. the current message needs to be displayed, not the obsolete ones--tho we do need to keep all previous decline messages for the information of the reviewer.
There is no way I can find of selecting those article submissions that were accepted or declined at a specific date, so these can specially be reviewed without looking at them all. (Earlier I was mainly doing it--this weekend I was trying to catch up with the current work)
There needs to be a clearer way of warning people not to resubmit the article without major improvements. If an article wouldn't even pass csd and clearly never will, the person should be so advised to prevent their engaging in fruitless further work on it.
The failure to list these articles at NPP remains a problem. I've mentioned this earluer, and I'm experimenting with a manual workaround that could potentially be automated. Unless we can solve this one, I fear the entire process is counterproductive. NPP will be missing what it ought to be seeing.
Whether or not we have that NPP listing, we need to integrate the twinkle placement of notices for needed improvement, or do something similarly ourslelf.

Now, the way people use it:

There needs to be a real emphasis on finding copyvio. Perhaps one of the copyvio bots can be incorporated, But otherwise there needs to be instructions to the reviewer to always check first for those sort of articles where it is likely.
When a reviewer sees repeated submissions of the same article without significant improvement, they ought to do something more than just place another routine notice. If the user is continually reinserting promotionalism, they need a formal warning--and the twinkle warnings do very nicely for this. Perhaps they can be integrated, but if not people should be encouraged to use them.
When a review see unacceptable usernames, they need to be followed up. Normally the person just needs a message to adopt a personal username, but sometimes they need to be listed for admin attention. It is not frequent enough that it needs to be built in, but people need to remember to do it.
I think I may have accumulated some ill will this weekend by correcting errors. As I do with NPP or CSD, If there s an error (usually an unjustified decline) i just do what i think is correct, but if I see it repetitively, I leave a message. There';s been an interesting result. When I explain to people at CSD how to do it, they usually (tho of course not always) are appreciative. Here, most of the time, they've been hostile. I've been saying the same things, so it must be that the people here are are editors who think themselves quite well qualified, while the people at CSD and NPP often know perfectly well they are beginners. Half-qualified people are a hazard.

My overall evaluation of this experiment, now that I have had some actual time in the trenches, is that unless we can fix the problems, we would be better off without it, and deal with everything in one place: NPP. If an ip wants to make an article, they should simply be guided to make an account. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

For the copyvio part, GOCE uses the Coren Search Bot for some copyvio detection. I wonder if the maintainer would be willing to let us tie into it somehow. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

@DGG: a very big thank you that your revise our existing system. Now some comments to the valid points

System problem #1 can be solved through changing the existing notification template; the |cv= is already used and can/could modify the complete text.

Can you give me an example for system problem #2? I don't understand the problem.

System problem #3.1: Although I don't like the multiple tagging of Twinkle, how would you implement it? (not the AFCH stuff, the submission template itself)

System problem #3.2: feel free to propose more decline reasons for Template:AFC submission/comments: Until now the consensus (for books) were that there aren't enough submissions which need to decline for that reason.

System problem #3.3: you want to remove the reasons completely or from the tool?

System problem #4: depends on bugzilla:31919

System problem #5: could be resolved through additional categories, I have no opinion on that

System problem #6: a new template?

System problem #7: should be resolved through the new page feed extension which is organzied by Ironholds

People problem #1: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EarwigBot 1 <-- down since Yahoo closed their API (Earwig already got the key of Coren); Madman was also asked for Userspace and AFC space for his followup bot for Corenbot. (no news, maybe leave him a tb for this thread)

People problem #2: imrpov the reviewers guide!

People problem #4: and how would you resolve that?

mabdul 13:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay:

Ask Earwig
A notification could be made, but it's redundant
Fixed in my build, currently broken because of bug (will post about this ASAP)
Requires a better bot, some template magic, and somebody fixing bug #31919
I don't understand
DEFINITELY!
To be fixed in WP:NPT
Partially done, will add to to do list

---

Earwig is doing that
DEFINITELY! (again)
Yeah, add to the reviewer instructions
People who write directly to mainspace are editors. People using AfC are students/IPs/company advertising personnel

I wish the ACTRIAL new page reform had been upheld by the WMF, then we wouldn't have this backlog. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 02:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, on issue 4, we currently have categories such as Category:AfC submissions by date/21 August 2012. If there is concensus, we may be able to set up the same system (either in the templates or the script) for when the request is processed. I am patently against the idea, though, as it would create a large number of categories that are of (I would argue) questionable long-term value. Perhaps a better option would be to have a week's worth of pages (seven pages named by day of the week) which would be appended by the script with every approve or decline (automatically select date as it would be a pain to update the script every day, I'm sure). Perhaps a bot could clear the page (or it could somehow be deleted and re-created with a default header) about a day before it comes up for use (clear Tuesday's page on or about Monday morning). This would allow easy double checking in the short term if it is needed. Alternatively, 31 pages could be used with day of the month as the decider. I'm not certain if all of this is feasible, perhaps someone with better knowledge of the script and the API could better evaluate this idea. --Nouniquenames (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on the copyvios thing. All of the code is written; I just have to test it. I'm sorry about the huge delays. Real life has been heavy lately. — Earwig ^talk 22:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hope For Children UNCRC Policy Centre

I don't see a duplicate. Am I missing something? -- :- ) Don 03:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The draft of which it was a duplicate, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hope For Children, was deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST by DragonflySixtyseven on August 11. Huon (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Huon. Caught my attention from my watchlist. Hell of a lot of confetti around this place? -- :- ) Don 15:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

feedback page

We have a feedback page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback which has literally no edit/cleanup/archiving since I stopped checking the page. Should we shut down the feedback page as it literally also doesn't give any useful input (mostly blank feedback inputs, nothing what to change, or afc submissions at the wrong places) what to change on the wizard? mabdul 22:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Go for it! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Some "amusing" responses in there, but it doesn't seem to have given us much useful feedback. I think just liasing with people as reviews get declined is a better solution. Get rid. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It may be 99% garbage, but is it worth the diamonds sometimes found?. If not, then close. -- :- ) Don 17:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Gold lock it with an edit notice saying something like "Thanks for your feedback! We have stopped maintaining this page, if you see an issue report it at WT:AFC". I'll draft something up. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 00:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

@Don/Nathan: please have a look at the page and also for the archives for 2011: really: did you find anything except a misplaced submission (history check) and or a RD question? If we remove/close that page, we need a big consensus since this would be highly controversial otherwise. @Earwig and Martin: any opinions? mabdul 00:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just left my feedback on this page. I was scrolling through previous feedback, and I came across some Nazi stuff here: Feedback from 184.174.176.138 (7 April 2012). Could you delete this please? TuttiFruttiCherryPie (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

@mabdul: Highly controversial? Please tell me you are being sarcastic. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 21:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Shutting down a feedback page which should help us to improve the actual system is highly controversial. mabdul 21:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It should have, but it did not. I will personally support closing it down, both here and if it is put to discussion elsewhere. --Nouniquenames (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up for safety: In case the feedback page is discontinued, I thought I'd better mention I've just noticed that the AfC Article Accepted notice invites the contributor to give feedback guess where... David_FLXD (Talk) 10:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Like I've said, we aren't using the feedback, so let's just delete any links and soft redirect to this page. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 18:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing "resubmit" links

At the help desk we sometimes get questions about the review templates not showing the "resubmit" link any more, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Kasey Lansdale, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 August 18#Articles for creation/Peopleperhour or Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 August 7#Added reliable sources/inline citations. Sometimes the users just misunderstand something, but I believe in many examples the "resubmit" link really does not appear any more (see for example Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Patrick O. O'Meara which has multiple "submission declined" messages but no "click here to resubmit" link). Is that a deliberate attempt to discourage repeated resubmissions, or is it a bug that should be fixed? Huon (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the script/bot being an idiot. I will hopefully take care of that with NathanBot I, but it will take a few weeks/months. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 17:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, help please? How do I make twinkle work in sandboxes? What a pain?

Thanks. -- :- ) Don 23:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean WP:AFCH? Unfortunately, you have to move the submission first for know. That's to be fixed, though. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 18:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I have been moving them first, but someone said they reviewed articles in the sandboxes, like it was no big deal. I have done it manually, but that's a pain. Perhaps, I should ask them how they are doing it?. Thanks. -- :- ) Don 16:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Earth Harp

This beautiful new instrument maybe invented by William Close, please someone make an excellent article. Thanks and sorry if posting in the wrong place. Please see and listen to his work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhUWIUkelw

And thanks, Twister, i may do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.143.157 (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You may start the article yourself by visiting Wikipedia:Article wizard. SwisterTwister talk 02:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually SwisterTwister the user would need to have an account and be logged in to create a new article. — ChedZILLA 08:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the Article Wizard is smart enough to create a draft in AfC space when the user cannot create a full-fledged new article. I haven't tried, though. Huon (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I provided the link because I assumed the user would use the articles for creation (not to mention, the article wizard link is provided at Wikipedia:AfC). If the IP was able to visit this talk page, they most assuredly visited the AfC main page. Additionally, IP addresses have been using the articles for creation program for years, since Wikipedia biography controversy of 2005 to be exact. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Seoul cyber university

(article deleted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welovescu (talk • contribs) 09:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This page is for users working on the AfC project's administrations. Please Click here to create an article. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hickstead Derby Trophy?

What horse was the Hickstead Derdy Trophy modelled on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.210.255 (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This page is for users working on the AfC project's administrations. Please Click here to go to the Reference Desk, who will be better suited to answer your query. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Village pump discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:VPP#Articles for creation that involves AFC. David 1217 ^{What I've done} 18:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

A common misconception that this is the only way articles are created

Looking through many of the posts on the help page it is clear that many of the draft creators seem to think that this system is the only way articles are created. They often complain: "..but 'this', 'that' and 'the other' article also has the same issues that you say my draft has but it has been approved". The reply is usually (correctly) based on OTHERSTUFF, but I hardly ever see the replier actually explain that the other rubbish article most probably never came through this system otherwise it would also have been turned down. That would clear up the idea that reviewers are treating some submissions unfairly. Roger (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to tell the authors of sub-standard declined drafts that there are ways to avoid review at AfC and create them in the mainspace. See WP:BEANS. Huon (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That's why you're the big kahuna in this village :) The BEANS angle didn't occur to me! Roger (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Decline should be reviewed

This decline should be reviewed and reversed. Electrospray ionisation (ESI) mass spectrometry is a well-established scientific method, and extractive ESI (the topic of the proposed page) is discussed in journals like Chem. Commun., as the references in the draft (like this one) show. It is not nonsense, no matter what the declining editor might think. And no, I had nothing to do with writing the draft, I just noticed the decline. 121.217.36.168 (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, but there is not much left after I remove the duplicate sentence. It's on my watch list to handle. Thanks. -- :- ) Don 06:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Afc talk and IPv6 addresses

Template:Afc talk automatically detects whether the user talk page is of an IP address and shows a message for IP users to create an account so that they can create articles directly. However the template will detect IPv6 addresses as registered users and tell them that they can create articles directly, which they actually cannot. The automatic detection has to be replaced with a parameter in the template (such as "anon") which if set to "yes" will display the message for IP users. The AFC script must also be modified so it can detect an IP address (JavaScript can do this, but the MediaWiki parser functions used it templates cannot) and add the parameter accordingly. jfd34 (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Do we actually need a parameter? There may well be a way to detect IPv6 in template code – it seems special:contributions has something which says "Please note: these are the contributions from a user editing from an IPv6 address" – but we can't just assume that an IP contains only 0-9 and '.' as it may also now contain ':' and A-F so the existing template code needs to change. K7L (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Untitled comment at 21:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

it said i deleted the first line but i din't pls help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101DelenaInforma (talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 21:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome message for newbies

I came here to make the same point as DGG's no. 1 above, about not telling contributors of copyvios that they can continue working on their submission when it has actually been deleted. I have only one thing to add to his comprehensive list: when a decline notice is the first entry on a newbie's talk page, it seems less BITEy if it is preceded by {{welcome}} or another suitable welcome message, which also gives the newbie links to general advice which should help them do better next time. It ought to be possible to do that automatically – the existing PROD template mechanism puts {{firstarticle}} before the PROD when added to a new page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, users should receive a welcome message especially if it may help them with the guidelines and what they should and shouldn't be adding. I've welcomed AfC users several times especially if I find the user(s) editing while reviewing "recent changes". SwisterTwister talk 18:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We already have Teahouse inviting implemented in the script. It would be a nightmare to implement, but I'll prod Mabdul. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 21:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So easy: if page doesn't exists, add "{{welcome}} (newline) AFC related stuff" instead of "AFC related stuff"? mabdul 22:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

/me facepalms. That's why you're the lead developer and not me. Will put on the agenda. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 00:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Just came up: Or do / should I check if there isn't any welcome template? This might create some false-positives or "older" users. mabdul 16:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe an AfC version such as subst:first article would be an excellent choice. However, the template would need to be changed such as removing "your article may not be retained" and should also include something such as "thanks for your recent efforts at your Article for creation submission but it has not passed Wikipedia guidelines at this time. Visiting the following links may help you improve the submission". Welcoming users can only help them and us and not to mention possibly saving time than simply adding another decline message and driving away the user after they have attempted multiple times. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, then we either have to change {{first article}} (new parameter) or create our own/new template. But basically my major question still stands (before I say goodbye and drive away cause of holidays): Checking for existing welcome templates (hard to develop) or only if there isn't any page? mabdul 11:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"If there isn't any page" is the important case, as that is "first contact". I'd be happy with that. Checking for previous welcomes only on the page might result in giving welcomes to long-standing editors who have had and archived a welcome in the past, which could seem patronising, and I imagine checking the whole history for welcomes would be complicated. JohnCD (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

How does User:Mdann52/AfC welcome look to everyone? Mdann52 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Just the job! JohnCD (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Check out {{Subst:Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Welcome}}. Does that rock anyones boat? ```Buster Seven Talk 14:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Also, as a result of talk at WP:WER there is an essay at WP:First contact...for what its worth. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Welcome--Amadscientist (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent choices! Would it be possible to make an AfC version of Template:w-graphical as well? SwisterTwister talk 20:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Mdann52/AFC welcome 2 and User:Mdann52/AFC welcome 3, (the last one still needs some work, btw)? Mdann52 (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic! However, I've been thinking we should probably make it automatic? An example is when a newbie user receives an A7 notice, the "first article" template is automatically listed. This may be easier rather than users listing the welcome messages themselves especially if they aren't aware of these AfC-specific welcome templates. SwisterTwister talk 20:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Multiple rejection reasons?

It looks like WP:AFCH and the templates only leave space for one rejection reason when declining an article. This is problematic as often an article fails multiple criteria, such as the unsourced stub of a self-promotion for a non-notable business which fails WP:RS, WP:NEUTRAL, WP:ADV and WP:COI but inexplicably gets tagged only with "this lacks reliable sources, but please go ahead and submit this ten more times as we wouldn't want to offend you" in WP:AFC without identifying a huge list of other issues which will cause a resubmission to quick-fail even with a source. Encouraging the user to go ahead and endlessly re-submit the same advertising with "by the way, the local business journal mentioned us once long ago" as a token source is a waste of their time and ours unless there's some reasonable prospect of a viable article. Maybe we need something like the WP:TWINKLE "Tag" function where a page with {{multiple issues}} gets a checklist worth of tags for each item which must be corrected. K7L (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is in the works, or under consideration, but I believe those people are already overloaded. I try to mention the additional problems in the comments with links to the WP page. -- :- ) Don 19:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, having the ability to list multiple reasons would be useful. However, I simply list the other reason(s) using the "comment" feature. SwisterTwister talk 19:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If they continue to submit it multiple times without improving it, I immediately CSD it as being disruptive. I know it's harsh, but a lot of times they come here looking for some sympathetic editor, and it becomes disruptive. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

G11ing submissions

I've just been quite annoyed with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Echo Barrier, and while I'm generally lenient about users creating articles about themselves, as it's a rookie mistake that can be learned from, since this looks pretty much like a straightforward spam, I've decided to not just decline the submission, but also nominate it for speedy deletion. I notice DGG did something similiar here a few days back. What do other people think? --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say, I think it's a judgement call. If it looks like it might be notable, and could possibly be made into an article, then it might be good to keep the copy. Otherwise, I like CSD, if you can get away with it. -- :- ) Don 16:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

My view of it is that I tag it as G11 if the article hasn't improved after multiple declines. Not only is submitting for review again wasting the user's time but also floods the pending submissions list. Other users may view this as biting the newcomers but I see it as the user's ignorance or possible refusal of addressing the issues. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if spam should be blanked (as we do for BLP violations now) instead of {{db-promo}}. The issue I'm seeing is that an advertiser will create something like Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Whiteboard Product Solutions, get the {{db-promo}} treatment after three rejections by two different reviewers, then resubmit Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WhiteBoard Product Solutions with no indication this has already been kicked to the kerb three times already. I only spotted the long list of previous rejections on this after wasting the time to write a detailed reply to "why did I get rejected" on my user talk page... only to find that two other editors had already explained the concept quite clearly. The user's contributions don't show the three previous attempts (as they were speedily deleted) but did show the user talk page activity. Blanking the page with a template would leave the history intact, making it clear what's happening for the next reviewer when these are pointlessly recreated. K7L (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As Chzz (talk · contribs) said a ~ year ago: Tag them if they aren't rescueable – see the archives before Jan'12 (with a blinking tag). mabdul 01:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

@K7L: Honestly, I would tag the AfC submission again and give the user a final advertising warning and advice how to properly write an article such as visiting Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Writing better articles. I would also suggest that the user take their time constructing the article before considering resubmitting. Users have to learn that they can't resubmit promotional material time after time especially if there was minimal to no improvement. I know this sounds harsh but it is the only option to stop the chances of another resubmission. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles in Sandboxes

I think we need to stop reviewing articles in User space and move user space articles to AfC ASAP and before reviewing. It is causing all kind of problems including history merges. What should I do when the User page is moved to AfC? The User page is now a redirect to AfC. Most newbies are not going to figure this one out. The same problem applies to sandboxes. I think we should move the user's sandbox which is now a redirect to a subpage by that name and make them a new sandbox. If we wanted to be nice. -- :- ) Don 17:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The use of user:(whomever)/sandbox is problematic as the WP:AFCH script only is active on pages in the Wikipedia (talk):Articles for creation/ namespace segment with the proper categories. A 'bot could move user:(whomever)/Proposed article name to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Proposed article name but an article named "sandbox" is not going to be moved to its proper place easily as one must look at the page manually and see if a title is proposed in bold intro text in the first paragraph before deciding where to send them. Until these are moved, AFCH ignores them, taking away a few useful reviewer tools. The current backlog of pending articles is littered with user:(whatever)/sandbox litter boxes.

The redirects left behind when moving these aren't a huge problem – the user can remove them when re-using the subpage for something else. Nonetheless, having to move large numbers of misplaced submissions is a waste of time in an already-backlogged AFC process. I'm not sure what would be the best solution... either change AFCH so that it *does* enable itself on user subpages or change the templates to ask the user to stop naming their proposed new articles sandbox unless this actually is a page about sand boxes as playground equipment (which already exists). K7L (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been giving them proper names before moving. And then, I try to move it and find that the editor has been working on the sandbox article and the AfC article. When I have time, I have been moving them and usually speedy declining them. I don't think most newbies know they have been redirected or what a redirect is. But if we don't leave a redirect, they think their article has vanished. Then, we will have them lining up at the Help Desk. -- :- ) Don 19:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

So, are we moving them to AfC-space? Just open submissions in userspace or any pages in Category:AfC submissions in userspace? --Mysterytrey 00:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we should not review or leave articles in sandboxes?

I have another history merge to do, and this one looks horrible. Somehow the article got into AfC with a copy in the sandbox. The editor apparently edited in AfC for awhile then in his sandbox for awhile. Awhile is more than a month in each case. I'm finding articles reviewed in the sandboxe and a copy reviewed in AfC. Most of the time I have to request a CSD for move, but sometimes a history merge. I have also found articles in sandboxes with an article in AfC and a reviewer removes the template in the sandbox because it is already in AfC. The editor requests another review. Then another reviewer removes the template from the sandbox. The editor requests another review. I think we need to get them out of the sandboxes ASAP and definitely not review them in the sandbox. IMHO. -- :- ) Don 18:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The other good reason not to edit in User space is, NONE of the templates work. -- :- ) Don 13:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Like User:Istanbulreview/sandbox and WT:Afc/The Istanbul Review, if anyone else would like to take care of that... --Mysterytrey 19:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If there are parallel edit histories (the two pages were being modified in the same timespan) a history merge is explicitly not recommended as it interleaves the two articles in the revision history to put them in order of time/date. History merge is intended to fix copy-and-paste moves only – where the history of one page ends where the other begins. Perhaps what we should be doing is using the existing '|D|duplicate|' decline reason ("this is a duplicate submission and we chose to review the other version at (name) instead...") instead of trying to stitch together what are, after all, duplicate submissions by one user. K7L (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, we either need to direct everyone to AfC Userspace – Which the Article Wizard doesn't appears to do. If this is changed, we can start to resolve this issue. The only other solution is leaving a template on the users talk page or sandbox, explaining what has happened (which I am willing to make btw). Mdann52 (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It is useful to remember that histmerging is only necessary for attribution purposes. If an editor creates a new article and makes a serious of edits in a sandbox, and then copies it somewhere else, as long as there are no intervening edits by others, attribution is not an issue. (Histemerge may still be used, but its not critical) Monty ₈₄₅ 19:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - This isn't the wizards fault. All articles directed through the wizard go to AfC draft space or directly into the backlog. I believe this could be an issue with the bot. I'll ask Petrb to turn it off and see if that helps. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 19:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Then the user could copypaste themself, but can reviewers/other users copypaste the user's new edits? User:Alexaisa/European Hydration Institute and WT:Afc/European Hydration Institute --Mysterytrey 19:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Other users can copy-paste the text only if they indicate clearly where it came from (the BY in CC-BY-SA, attribution). For instance, it would be legit to take our featured article Ontario Highway 401 (about a road from Montréal to Toronto) and translate all or part of it to fr:Autoroute 401 (Ontario) if and only if the version on :fr: says (in text or in the edit summary) that it uses text from contributors here. In that example it's listed explicitly "Notes et références (en) Cet article est partiellement ou en totalité issu de l’article de Wikipédia en anglais intitulé « Highway 401 (Ontario) » (voir la liste des auteurs)" but listing it anywhere – including the edit summary – should suffice. The one thing to watch: if the original is deleted, we need to keep the list of contributors on the talk page or somewhere for attribution. K7L (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The article in question has like 2 months of edits in sandbox then a submission, then 6 week of edits in AfC then 2 months of edits to sandbox. Something like that. There is a hole where the edits took place in AfC. In this case a cut and paste to AfC might be the best solution,since the last edits were to the sandbox. Thanks for the comments. -- :- ) Don 23:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless we move everything to AfC, a template for User pages might be a good idea. I had to move one off of the main User page the other day. Do I leave the redirect or leave it blank. A newbie is not going to know he in now being redirected into AfC or that his page has mysteriously vanished. -- :- ) Don 23:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

So, did I provide proper attribution in the edit summary here, for changes made on this page, and is this a sufficient redirect? --Mysterytrey 00:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if someone looking at the edit history can determine whom to blame for creating any particular bit of content, the BY in CC-BY-SA is there as it should be. K7L (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox template

It looks like the mess of sandbox AFC requests could be the result of templates like {{user sandbox}} (placed by the "my sandbox" gadget) which invite the user with "If you are writing an article, and are ready to request its creation, click here." That link preloads {{AFC_submission/Subst}} as a new section directly on the sandbox page. At no point is the user prompted for a proposed article title. K7L (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Article Titles. I'm worried something new and cool shows up, and we have 500 sandboxes on the same subject. Didn't there used to be a title check? The poor AFCH people are already up to their collective eyeballs I think. -- :- ) Don 00:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Would everything work if, the sandbox script asked for a title, and then moved it to WT:Articles for creation? -- :- ) Don 16:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Where and how is the sandbox template added to the user sandbox? We only need a small script to ask for an article title, check that it does not exist, create a sub-page with the correct title in User space and put a link in User talk. When ready to submit, another small script that moves the page to AfC and leaves a link in User talk. Everything would be nice and clean, no garbage laying around. These would be less than an hour's work each for an experienced programmer. I will make the time if I have to, but it will take me 1 day each in JS. -- :- ) Don 20:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate submissions

Another oddball manner to create a duplicate submission: IP asks a registered user via IRC to create National Lobster Hatchery, it's obligingly created as a stub so that the IP can expand it to an article. IP registers a new account six minutes later, then creates Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Lobster Hatchery which is declined as the title now already exists in mainspace. *oops!* We now have two of this same topic (one mainspace stub, one AFC article) with the rejected WP:AFC draft as the more complete of the pair. A request was left on talk:National Lobster Hatchery and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Lobster Hatchery that the user combine the two into one viable article. Annoyingly, the template placed on the user's page counterproductively encourages that they keep editing the duplicate version with "If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Lobster Hatchery. To edit the submission, click on the 'Edit' tab at the top of the window." K7L (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Redirect template

As a temporary/long-term fix, I have created {{R to AfC namespace}}. Thought/other possibilities I could make? Mdann52 (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose a soft redirect might be a possibility, so instead of #REDIRECT [ [pagename] ] it says in plain text "This has been moved to [ [pagename] ], please make subsequent changes there". Nonetheless, if reviewers are having to manually move sandboxes to WP(talk):AFC space, anything like this is going to be just one more step that has to be carried out manually and likely will be missed when moving pages. K7L (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

@Mdann52, Your template will work well on pages that have to stay, such as User or User talk. In which case the article should be gone, so there will be nothing left to edit, so you might want to tweak the working. When we move User/sand box or User/whatever, will have to substitute 2 file names. Too much work. Need my script. -- :- ) Don 20:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I was thinking wrong. I got the idea Mdann52. That will work. Since hopefully this is just temporary, should we use {{subst:R to AfC namespace}} then we can delete the template later on? -- :- ) Don 06:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I added one also, {{Page2AfC}}, for placement on user's talk page. It will make a new section on the user's talk page. I will see if it is worth the hassel. 1st parameter = subdirectory name, 2nd parameter = article name. -- :- ) Don 22:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Not needed. -- :- ) Don 06:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

{{R to AfC namespace}} works if you delete the #REDIRECT and we should probably subst: it. That should help with some confusion. Thanks. -- :- ) Don 06:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Any reason for using subst: ? It's normally needed only if a template contains signatures or timestamps which must appear as the time the page was originally created, such as the {{subst:submit}} which timestamps WP:AFC submissions. K7L (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

As Don said, hopefully this is only temporary, and subst would keep intact if we ever want to delete the template in the future. --Mysterytrey 21:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"subst:" will copy the information on to the page. We can then delete the template at any time without impacting pages. @ Mdann52, If it's not a problem, I was going to modify your wording or you can do it. It currently says not to edit your article on this page, when the page is supposedly blank. There is no reason the editor should not be able to immediately use the sandbox, if that is the page, to start a new article. It's a bit of a pain going back to add this, some pages will get missed, but it the ones that get the template help to reduce confusion, so much the better for everyone. -- :- ) Don 22:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This also solves the problem of a copy in User space. Just blank the page and add a link to the AfC article and the {{R to AfC namespace}}. -- :- ) Don 00:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't the Suggested Articles for Creation suggestion hidden?

It used to be that if I typed in something for which there was no Wik article, I was given, inter alia, a choice of suggesting the article. Now, this option does not appear if I am signed in. What gives? Kdammers (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd expect the WP:AFC link shows up for unregistered IP users as that's the only way (nominally) they can create a page. A registered user can create an article directly when ends up on new page patrol without going through AFC at all. K7L (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That's because WP:RA, which handled requested articles (redlinks, not submissions) has all but dissolved. If you want to create an article, go here. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 21:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I know how to create an article, but my frustration is for suggesting articles that I feel definitely should be written but for which I am not qualified to write or for any other reason do not wish to or cannot write. Kdammers (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Why WP:AFCH v4.1.16 is taking so long

I've been meaning to post this for a while. The next update to WP:AFCH is v4.1.16 and is almost ready to be released. It contains:

Option to add BLP tags when publishing
Updated decline interface that should be easier to use
The first in a series of patches designed to revamp the redirect reviewing interface
Fix for not reading multiple redirect submissions correctly
It should now recognize incorrectly formatted redirect submissions and allow you to decline them as such
Fix for the error with button color coding
Removed unfinished feature buttons
Cleanup for future updates
Preparation for FFU support
Removed Herobrine

The problem is in a nutshell this: a library that MediaWiki depends on has updated and now uses a different appearance for notifications. This breaks the script. I'm putting in the extra hours to write an emergency patch so I can put out a release candidate, but it could be a week at most. Please reply if you have any questions. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 01:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess that still leaves the question of what to do with user:(whatever)/sandbox pages which WP:AFCH currently will not review unless they're moved to sensible names first. Is there any way to disable the check that requires Wikipedia (talk):Articles for creation/Pagename? K7L (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a more practical solution would be to have a bot (or something) move all pages into AFC-space. The down-side of that is it would clutter up move logs for declined articles, but IMO would be easier to organize with. Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 02:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In theory, a bot exists (according to the WP:AFCH documentation) *if* the page has a sensible name in userspace when tagged for WP:AFC. The problem is that users are naming their draft pages "sandbox" instead of something meaningful. As Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox already exists, the move fails. The list of pending AFC articles is filled with these. K7L (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we should think about how to correctly fix the issues for a bit of time and tough it out for a while. Every time someone comes up with a quick fix we have to deal with unintended consequences for months. -- :- ) Don 02:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed

Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 07:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Could the bot be updated for if case name="blah/sandbox" then try moving with name "blah". Possibly on fail try "blah 1"... --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well "blah" would most likely be the users username which would have nothing to do with the actual article. I would have a bot first look for any bold text in the first sentence, or check the |title= or |name= of an infobox if it exists. IIRC the article wizard recommends they create it at User:Username/sandbox as opposed to User:Username/Subject. Maybe look into changing that? Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 07:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing enough self-promotional autobiography in most of these sandboxes that I'd hesitate to say the username would have little to do with the actual article. :( K7L (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You're not wrong either. Bot should find those and save us a lot of misery by sending them to Wiki-hell. -- :- ) Don 13:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to try to answer all of your questions:

Do we have a bot that moves these submissions?
- Yes, ArticlesForCreationBot (talk · contribs).
Why isn't it working?
- It's not intelligent enough yet to recognize sandbox articles and move them correctly.
How can we fix that?
- Have it move incorrectly filed submissions to WT:AFC/Bot Processed Submission #2012111145 or something.
Can you set AfC to work in userspace?
- Yes, and that is high priority.

Finally, it looks like Tim has fixed the massive bug holding back the update, so I hope to have a release candidate out by Monday. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 15:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

And it works! Internal patch #116-2012981540 has fixed the display error and the release candidate is now ready! I will be setting beta to use this build soon, but until then you can delete all instances of AFCH (including the gadget and any script versions) and add the code

importScript('User:Nathan2055/afc releasecandidate.js'); // AFCH v4.1.16rc

to this page. Just to note, I will not push the sandbox fix until the next update. Anyway, as usual please report any bugs here as you find them. Happy testing, Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 20:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've found a bug, there is an issue involving reviewing so that the script freezes when marking a sub. We're working on it, hold on... --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 22:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sry for interruption... As I noted on Nathan's talk page: please keepup doing good work, and trust him as long as he gets enough beta testers, but sadly because I'm without net access, I can't do anything nor I have the time for it atm. I know that my last beta script had many bugs in, but that was the reason it was called a "beta script"... Leave me tbS or mails and I will respond, even in emergencies... mabdul 01:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

@mabdul – I responded to you on my talkpage about the wikignome build. @All – I believe I have come up with a way to at least make a temporary patch to the above bug, will test today. --Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 21:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have good news, bad news, and a question. The good news is that I know how to fix the bug that is breaking the script. The bad news is that it will take me a few days to implement the change. I'll try to push it as soon as possible. The question is: why isn't anyone testing the candidate yet? Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk – contribs} 23:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, I can't get *any* WP:AFCH script to work, whether gadget or candidate. The buttons to accept or decline are hiding behind the site logo again. Until that's resolved, there's no way to test the rest. K7L (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)