Jump to content

User talk:Loriendrew/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Loriendrew,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

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

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

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

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

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

Reminders:

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

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Loriendrew:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1700 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Childname" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Childname has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 3 § Wikipedia:Childname until a consensus is reached. — kashmīrī TALK 18:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Revert on "Human height" Page

Hello @Loriendrew

My edit to the page human height was reverted and changed back to:

The tallest living man is Sultan Kösen of Turkey at 251 cm (8 ft 3 in) and the tallest living woman is Siddiqa Parveen of India at 234 cm (7 ft 8 in).

This statement is not backed by any source, and the Wikipedia article on Siddiqa Parveen states that she was "formerly listed by Guinness World Records as the tallest living woman", which I believe makes it clear that for whatever reason, that title no longer holds. The current wikipeda article on Rumeysa Gelgi states that, as of the present, "she is the tallest living woman confirmed by Guinness World Records." The Guinness World Records official website also confirms the same (https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/tallest-woman-living-). I am restoring the edit, this time citing the Guinness World Records page as a source.

I hope this clears up any confusion, and I do admit that it is quite unclear, as any 'official' sources on this matter are scant, and the data seems to conflict with each other (Siddiqa Parveen is stated to be 234 cm, but Rumeysa Gelgi is apparently only 215.16 cm; I am not aware why Siddiqa Parveen does not hold the record as of now, but Guinness clearly states as such).

Apologies for any confusion or lack of clarity in my writing.

Regards,

EmperorBonaparte

EmperorBonaparte (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

If/Then

The copyvio goes back further than the two revisions you've tagged for revdel. You need to identify when the material was first added as it's all those revisions that will require deletion. Nthep (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Think I found the correct range and updated the notice. My apologies.. have not had much revdel experience.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
No apology needed. Getting your head round the scale of some copyvios and how far back they go can be quite staggering. I know it shocked me when I first started looking at them. Nthep (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
It went a lot further back, to November 2013! Nthep (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I am so sorry, was looking for some specific phrases which popped up within my range. If we do this again, just send me the "More!" meem and I will dive further.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd suggest Wikipedia:Who Wrote That? as a tool for finding out who added the text. Nthep (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

"Battle of Sialkot(1761)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Battle of Sialkot(1761) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 18 § Battle of Sialkot(1761) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Steve Earle

Hello I saw you added to Steve Earle's page that he has a daughter with a groupie. I am not a regular editor here, but think this should at least be framed as speculation. The source you used is an unsourced aggregation site, and as I noted on the talk page there, the claim is unsubstantiated. There are two well researched biographies of Earle, which I think should take precedence. St. John does mention the claim by Baker, and it may well be true, but Earle denied it and there was never an attempt to prove paternity at the time. It is not impossible that she has since used Ancestry or something similar, but there would need to be a source. 131.238.215.0 (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This information was not added by me, just moved it into chronological order and formatted the entry and citation.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Department Q

Hi, thanks for your message, which was the first I saw of the merge. Yes, I felt there were enough references for a stand alone page, especially with the change in location and size of the production (Netflix) Hildreth gazzard (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Why rvs an "Eric" removed because

so i add "Eric Filatov (born 2018)" and later was removed 2001:44C8:4707:AFC8:E8C5:BBF1:59C6:C37A (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Entries to lists should have an existing article. If Filatov has an article made, then they can be added to the list.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

  • Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
  • Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
  • Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
  • Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
  • Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
  • Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
  • Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
  • Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
  • Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
  • Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
  • Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
  • Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
  • Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
  • Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
  • Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
  • Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
  • Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello Loriendrew,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me!!

Hello. I'm SolshineBenie and i'm going to tell the question is to why you revert my edit that is supposed to be unchanged and untouched? SolshineBenie (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Your edit contained multiple significant errors. The correct article/link is COVID–19 pandemic, "Cornavirus pandemic" is a redirect to that article. You had a misspelling. Additionally, you changed the title of a published article, so it was reverted back to the correct title.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Im sorry. But to me the name Coronavirus seems to be a correct name for a disease instead of this? Bye fir now. SolshineBenie (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Synesthesia category

Hi. You reverted my category edit of Georg Anschütz since "Category is about topic, not a place for people with synesthesia", but Georg Anschütz is not a person with synesthesia but a researcher of synesthesia, as mentioned in the article. The Category:Synesthesia currently includes researchers of synesthesia such as Richard Cytowic and Joel Salinas. Furthermore, the current synesthesia category also includes Tilden Daken, a person with synesthesia. Are you sure this category should not include people with synesthesia? If so, would you please explain the reason? --saebou (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The best place for that would be at Category:People with synesthesia. Unfortunately, that has been twice deleted, most recently via this deletion discussion. Start by having a look at WP:DISABILITYCAT.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Does that mean that Georg Anschütz can be added to Category:Synesthesia because he is a researcher? Furthermore, the other two people I added to the category, Patricia Lynne Duffy (author of Blue Cats and Chartreuse Kittens: How Synesthetes Color Their Worlds) and Daniel Tammet (author of Born on a Blue Day), both wrote well-known books about synaesthesia.　The guideline you showed says that you cannot add people to the category "unless that condition is considered WP:DEFINING for that individual", and synesthesia is central to these two writers' writings. Synesthesia could be regarded as Wikipedia:Defining to these people, and if the category is about the topic, I think famous authors of the books on the topic should be included in the category. --saebou (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Sure, the first two. Tammet's article shows synesthesia studies of him, not by him, and the book seems like a singular memoir–type whereas Duffy has a defined career incorporating synesthesia.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Igor Sikorsky

Hi! I would like to point out that your removal of my edit in Igor Sikorsky contradicts both Wikipedia:Write the article first and Wikipedia:Red link. According to Wikipedia:Write the article first editors are encouraged to write the article first before adding it to a list, template or disambiguation page. Igor Sikorsky is a bio that does not fall into any of these categories. In turn, Wikipedia:Red link even encourages the creation of this type of links, explicitly stating that red links help Wikipedia grow. Moreover, it also indicates that red links can be created to biographies of people who would likely meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Ivan Sikorsky, described in six language editions of Wikipedia, certainly meets this requirement. Also note that Igor Sikorsky contains more links to non-existent articles, e.g. Sikorsky Avion Atlas or Sikorsky H-2. Therefore, I'm going to revert to my previous edit. Best wishes, Teukros (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not vandalise articles

It's FIVE times. [1]. 197.87.135.139 (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You may be misunderstanding the term "vandalism" as you failed to support your change with a reliable source. The existing source only supports 4x.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

First

It seems you don't understand about the usage of names (for example family members). Yet you think you do. Delectable1 (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

See the Rhiannon Giddens article which you also edited. Note the usage of first names for her parents IN the article. Delectable1 (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
A more surgical revision of your edits have been made. Your undoing reintroduced the same spelling and styling errors, which you acknowledged in the edit summary, yet made no effort to repair. As for the usage of names, please look at MOS:SURNAME and MOS:SAMESURNAME for future guidance in your editing of in–article names.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Please refrain from removing content without adequately explaining why, as you did at 2006. Continued unexplained content removal may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ItsCheck the 2nd (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Moving this discussion to your talk page where your edit warring behavior has already been discussed.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 13:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

ANI notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Removal of content without adequate explanation, edit war, and personal attacks. Thank you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Loriendrew/Archive_12&oldid=1246907651"