Jump to content

User talk:Newslinger/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Newslinger! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

April 2018

Information icon Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Alexander Gesmundo— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you've targeted my reversion instead of the actual nonconstructive edit. I've undone your reversion. Newslinger (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


Information icon Hi, Newslinger. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Xoxzo. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. This also applies to A7(waiting to tag it). 331dot (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll follow these guidelines in the future. Newslinger (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Spam Blacklist edits

Thanks for cleaning these up, but in some cases, removing those sources leaves a section of text completely unsupported by a reference. You might consider tagging those cases with {{citation needed}} so that the issue can be addressed by future editors. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 12:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. I'll look over my edits and I'll either add the tag or make content adjustments. Newslinger (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I came here to say the same thing. This edit [1] left behind an unsourced quote, which is not good. Also there was no edit summary, which made me hunt around in your contributions and talk page to figure out whether this was vandalism or not. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I accidentally omitted the edit summary for this edit. Sorry about that. I'm going to review my previous edits and add tags or replacement references before continuing. Newslinger (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

About Shared source

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Shared source a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Source available. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyamorph (talk • contribs) 19:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'll request a move to avoid fragmenting the article history. — Newslinger talk 19:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Great! I think I made the same mistake the first page move I ever made too! Polyamorph (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

This is your first and last warning!

You have the COI here and are unfit to moderate and edit this page because personal dispute unjustified reasoning you have nothing contributed to the talk page of the ferrolens just issued you retarded delete tag.. . Three senior editors have passed this page and an administrator prior. I will report you for vandalism, harassment and COI. Also ask for Administrative Enforcement to make sure you get blocked from WP.

The next time... This WAS YOUR LAST WARNING!!...

I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN KEEP UP ALL THE TIME WITH PEOPLE LIKE YOU!

Markoulw (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Markoulw, please join the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferrolens. My nomination of the article is based solely on the general notability guideline, and I have no personal dispute with you. — Newslinger talk 18:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Newslinger: Your patience is admirable. TeraTIX 01:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you help me do the semi-protected?

95.145.233.193 (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC) I don't know how to do it but can you do it for me I don't know what to do 95.145.233.193 (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I can help you place an edit request. Which article would you like to edit? — Newslinger talk 08:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

95.145.233.193 (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC) The bits that say its not fully done at. 95.145.233.193 (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the article? — Newslinger talk 08:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

95.145.233.193 (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:95,145.233.193 95.145.233.193 (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Currently, your user and user talk pages are not protected. Fortunately, since these pages aren't being vandalized, they don't need to be protected. Please read through Wikipedia's protection policy for more details. — Newslinger talk 09:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

95.145.233.193 (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC) Yes they were they were vandalised yesterday but had to get rid of it and ban then for 24 hours. 95.145.233.193 (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi. Thank you for the welcome message you've left on my talkpage and the other helpful edits you've made recently. Catch you around. (signed) Dogs curiosity talk to me! 15:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

​No problem! Thanks for volunteering to fight vandalism on Wikipedia.​ — Newslinger talk 15:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Your review of my potential article: Paraconsistent Mathematics

Thank you for taking the time to review Draft: Paraconsistent Mathematics. It is probably quite premature to accept it as a full article since my work on it is so preliminary. But I thought I would test the waters. Please read it carefully (especially the hidden REMarks to editors) because I believe I have made a good start.

Schiszm (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Schiszm, you did make a good start. I've moved your request for assistance to the Articles for Creation help desk, and responded there. — Newslinger talk 00:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Request on 09:06:12, 7 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Jhureley1977


Ustad Bismillah Khan Yuva Puruskar is awarded by India's topmost authority in Classical Music and Dance form - Sangeet Natak Akademi. It is a body created by Ministry of Culture, Governemnt of India. Please advise why this award doesn't qualify. Yuva Puruskar is awarded to young artist and is highest award given to young musicians - classical art form in India. http://sangeetnatak.gov.in/

I am researching and finding more details for Yashwant Vaishav. Please advise.

Jhureley1977 (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jhureley1977, I'm looking more closely into the Ustad Bismillah Khan Yuva Puraskar award and I'm reviewing your draft again. — Newslinger talk 09:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I've re-reviewed the draft. Just add a reliable source to support the text about Vaishnav's early life and career, and the draft should be ready to be published.​ — Newslinger talk 09:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Lee

Good review of the draft! I repeated/extended what you said , and declined--tho I was very tempted to consider G11. Please watch for recreation--I'd appreciate being informed. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

​Thanks for reading through the draft! I was ambivalent because the author previously submitted two other drafts that were just like this one. The first one, Morley Baer, was declined on April 27, 2011 for non-neutrality, then approved on May 9, 2011 after the author expanded it. That article is now in much better shape, but a lot of the credit goes to KrakatoaKatie, who rewrote it in 2012. However, the second one, Ray McSavaney, was accepted in 2017 on its initial submission despite having the same writing style.
I do recognize that these articles are valuable as drafts. They were carefully researched, and the author spent a lot of time and effort to compile information from a large number of sources. I'm just not sure when it would be appropriate to release them into article space, since we could tag them with {{pov}} and {{tone}} and provide interested readers with more information than they would otherwise see. — Newslinger talk 07:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, I'm assuming that the author is volunteering to go through AfC, as there are no technical restrictions preventing them from creating a new page in article space. Perhaps this is a good reason to be a bit more stringent on the tone requirements. However, if this draft were published and then nominated for deletion in its current form, it would probably be kept or moved back to draft space, not deleted. — Newslinger talk 07:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll do some further work with them, & ry to explain to the contributor. As you say. sometimes a tone problem is severe enough to lead tyo an article being deleted, and this might well have been the case here. The specific reason would have been unsourced statements of judgment. (Since he is still alive, this is a BLP. and such statements are very often a reason for decline, and deletion as well) Having articles sent back from draft to mainspace to afd to draft is a current ly unsettled procedure. As you may have observed, some people are using it as a way to get drafts deleted, instead of using MfD, and doing it for that purposes is not considered acceptable.
More generally, everything about screening new drafts or articles is and had always been somewhat problematic--our procedures have evolved by trial and error over the last 14 years, and I have no particular confidence in the way we do it. Er get it right perhaps 80% of the time--we can't reach 100, or even 99, but we should be ale to at least reach 90.
The most important part is what I'm about to do, and try to advise the editor. We've had editors try to use WP for creative nonfiction before, some quite competently/. Some learn, others do not & eventually leave, usually but not always voluntarily. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the note you left on my talk page. I'm doing my good faith best to keep up with WP guidelines as I make my assessments. I've tried to add some information that I think will help to the XTC page. If the community disagrees, I can always move on and work other places. Jessamyn (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

​No problem, and please don't take my note as criticism. It's just a courtesy to inform interested editors when nominating an article for deletion. I think it's great that you're volunteering at AfC, and I hope you continue reviewing drafts. You might also want to participate in more discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, since the notability guidelines are a lot stricter than they used to be several years ago. — Newslinger talk 16:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

SAINT (software)

Let me know whether you think it appropriate for me to edit with a declared COI.Naraht (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Naraht, thanks for declaring your conflict of interest. Because the article has been inactive, the subject is uncontroversial, and you haven't been affiliated with SAINT for a long time, I don't see a problem with you editing the article. — Newslinger talk 22:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Ewan McGregor performance in "Christopher Robin" sources.

"Give much of the credit to McGregor in the thankless task of playing opposite his adorably furry co-stars, ably handling the comedy derived from the fact that he doesn't dare let others see them." https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/02/entertainment/christopher-robin-review/index.html

"He’s an actor who can roll with this movie’s punches, whether it requires him to be light on his feet or dragged down by existential despair, exhilarated by childlike play or exasperated by a house-wrecking creature who says things like,'People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day'." https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-reviews/christopher-robin-movie-review-704632/

"First and foremost is McGregor’s performance in the title role. The guy sells being the put-upon, overburdened office drone so well that it’s a treat to see him begin to rediscover his younger self and let himself play...McGregor is the glue that holds this whole movie together." https://www.eastidahonews.com/2018/08/christopher-robin-nearly-buries-best-qualities-under-blanket-of-nostalgia/

"But it’s doubtful the movie would work at all if not for McGregor: He turns Christopher’s anxiety into a haunting presence, the kind of storm cloud that we can all, now and then, feel hovering above us. Yet McGregor is also an actor capable of expressing unalloyed delight. And when, as Christopher Robin, he finally does, some of that delight rubs off on us too." http://time.com/5357651/christopher-robin-review/

That seems like enough for now. Thanks for the agreement to put this in, would love to see it where it deserves to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.168.91 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

 Already done. Also, since the Christopher Robin (film) article is no longer protected, you can edit it without submitting a request. — Newslinger talk 16:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ripple (payment protocol), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Currency exchange (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed — Newslinger talk 23:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Lakewood Church

Source: https://www.lakewoodchurch.com/Pages/new-here/Speaking-Schedule.aspx

can you help me add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.187.34.247 (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 22:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Renaming of 2 software articles

Hi, I have problems with your overly eager renaming of the renaming of carefully curated articles with clear focus. Please discuss before in future before pushing such steps, i will rename back now. Cheers Shaddim (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Shaddim, sorry about the inconvenience. If I propose a similar move again, it will be as a requested move discussion in accordance with the edit, revert, discuss cycle. — Newslinger talk 07:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

2016 Young Critics Circle Awards‎

Hi! I see that you accepted 2016 Young Critics Circle Awards‎. It appears at first sight to be completely devoid of references, so I wondered, what (and how many) independent reliable sources did you find that persuaded you that the topic is notable by our standards; and also whether you had some good reason for not adding them to the article? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I've also just come across the article from new page reviewing, it seems all the articles for each year seem to only have one source to varying degrees of unreliability. A search does reveal much sources either to establish notability. I would advocate deletion of all yearly articles. What do you guys think? ~ Araratic | talk 12:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Araratic, I considered nominating the 26 other award articles for deletion until I discovered that the 2016 Young Critics Circle Awards‎ might meet WP:GNG. If you want to do a WP:BUNDLE nomination, I'd recommend researching each award year and excluding the years that have sufficient coverage. Alternatively, it might make sense to combine all of the award pages into a single list article. — Newslinger talk 12:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Justlettersandnumbers, the draft author (BudoyAko) linked to the award announcement page of the Young Critics Circle's official site as a reference. Despite being a WordPress blog, https://yccfilmdesk.wordpress.com/ does appear to be the official site, according to the revision of the Young Critics Circle article that passed AfD in 2012. Entries can be confirmed at Philippine Daily Inquirer ([2], [3]) and Abante Tonite ([4]).
I admit that the subject is borderline in terms of WP:GNG, but I accepted it because I thought it would pass AfD (per WP:AFCPURPOSE) and because I wanted to be consistent with the 26 other articles (from 1990 Young Critics Circle Awards to 2015 Young Critics Circle Awards), all of which solely reference the same primary source. You're right in that it would have been better to add the sources before accepting the draft, and I was in the process of researching sources when you posted your comment here. In the future, I'll add the sources first. — Newslinger talk 12:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Newslinger, but I still don't see how the website of the awarding group could in any way be considered an independent reliable source. The page apparently doesn't meet our minimum requirements for notability, and I suggest moving it back to draft. If there are others equally poorly sourced, they too should go back to draft space.
It seems that you and I have fairly different ideas on minimum notability requirements, and I wonder if it might be useful for this to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. Would you feel like initiating something along those lines? (because if I do it might look a bit like criticism on my part, which is not what I mean at all). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Justlettersandnumbers, the two sources that qualify the subject for notability under WP:GNG are Abante Tonite and Tempo. These sources were cited in the article on 13:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC). The award's official site, which the list article draws most of its content from, is used as a primary source. If you think that the 2016 Young Critics Circle Awards are not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, you're welcome to nominate the article for deletion. Considering the poor sourcing in the articles for the other years (1990-2015), other interested editors may form a consensus to merge all of the articles into a single list article. Since both you and Araratic have raised concerns regarding my acceptance of this draft, I'll start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation right now. — Newslinger talk 06:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Regarding my acceptance of Draft:2016 Young Critics Circle Awards‎. — Newslinger talk 06:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Seminal fluid protein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Refractory period (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed — Newslinger talk 09:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Global Rank listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Global Rank. Since you had some involvement with the Global Rank redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Mobile Marketing Group

Mobile Marketing Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi you have recently reviewed Mobile Marketing Group Page for submission and rejected based on not notable. Could I please ask you to reconsider. Mobile Marketing Group is one of the largest providers of SMS messaging services to business in the United Kingdom. The largest supplier to the UK Government and the longest verified supplier on the Governments Digital Marketplace. This is not a new company having been established since 2011, with verifiable information showing double digit growth year on year. In a world where security breaches make daily news, for Wikipedia not to include a company that is without doubt the most highly accredited in terms of security does not make sense. I ask you kindly to reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.78.141 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I rejected Draft:Mobile Marketing Group because the company doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for corporations. After searching online, I wasn't able to find 2 independent reliable sources showing that the company meets these criteria. If you can find at least 2 sources meeting the criteria, and include them into the article, I'll be happy to approve the draft. — Newslinger talk 05:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

i am not sock , y did you removed speedy tag

?

(Film Fan3 (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC))

Hi Film Fan3, if you are not a sockpuppet, then the investigation will conclude in your favor. Nominating it for speedy deletion will not help your case. — Newslinger talk 12:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hi Newslinger. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, do check back at WP:PERM in case this concerns your application. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term non use, (it is a 'use-it-or-lose-it' access) the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:REQ

Hi! I noticed you'd been removing some bluelinks from requested articles pages. User:Enterprisey/req-helper makes this process slightly easier, as it can "mark for deletion" all bluelinks with one button click. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Enterprisey, I've installed your script and it works very well. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 04:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

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

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news
As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
Other
Moving to Draft and Page Mover
  • Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
  • If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
  • Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
  • The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
  • The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

  • Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
  • In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
  • MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
  • User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
  • User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
  • User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
  • User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
  • User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Amar Naik

Hi Newslinger, Thank you for reviewing the my draft. I took note of the comment you made stating that the ‘Daily Mail’ is not considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia’s list of common sources. I can confirm the link I included was referring to the ‘Zambian Daily Mail’ and not the ‘British Daily Mail’ which the Wikipedia guidelines and link refers to instead. Would you advise that I remove the Zambian Daily Mail link to not cause further confusion? Your help would be appreciated.

Vitruvian111 (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vitruvian111, thanks for the correction. I did confuse the Daily Mail with the Zambia Daily Mail. Sorry about that. The latter is not excluded from Wikipedia under community consensus (WP:DAILYMAIL), but is considered a biased or opinionated source since it's a state-owned paper. I've struck out my previous comment on Draft:Amar Naik and added some additional comments on the sourcing and the chart. Please be sure to add inline citations to the draft, since it's a biography of a living person. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 08:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Request to revert deletion

My entries on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OLAP_servers were removed (on September 12) as there was no associated article. The article has been created. Please undo the deletion or let me know if I can do it. Thanks Nidhibhandari21 (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Nidhibhandari21

Hi Nidhibhandari21, the Kyvos entries have been restored at Comparison of OLAP servers. Please also take a minute to review Wikipedia's policy on paid contributions. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 00:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Nidhibhandari21 (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Sam Sailor. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, List of Costa Rican models, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Sam Sailor 17:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

My edits to DevOps page

You removed my changes because the source is unreliable - well its a blog post. If i just dont use the reference would the text stand (its much better than what was before) and all i did was add a blog if people want to dig deeper. Happy to do this differently if it makes sense - still new to Wiki editing to make it better in area of expertise. Any guidance appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mircohering (talk • contribs) 14:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mircohering, self-published blogs aren't considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. It's also not a good idea to promote your own blog on Wikipedia, since advertising is strictly prohibited by policy. Please take a minute to read through Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to see what kinds of sources are preferred for references. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 14:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Sugar RfC close

Hello, Newslinger. You closed a RfC on sugar information yesterday. Would you have any objections to letting it run for another month to see if consensus develops? My original phrasing was clearly bad, but the discussion seems to me to be sharpening up the questions, which may mean we can get some agreement out of it. HLHJ (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Hi HLHJ, I've undone the closure. You may submit another request for closure if consensus emerges. — Newslinger talk 01:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanking you !

Thank you, for correct guidance. Parth0810 (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem, Parth0810. Whether you choose to participate in Wikipedia or Wikibooks (or both!), I hope you enjoy contributing as an editor. Welcome! — Newslinger talk 16:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding G-Eazy wikipedia page

Multiple times you have removed content I have added to the wiki page of G-Eazy. You claim that I did not provide reliable sources but I did. I can't help but think that you are simply trying to protect this person from having their full story told and that you are bias. I would appreciate it if you restored the information I added to this person's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgfrank1593 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jgfrank1593, Wikipedia has a very high standard of verifiability for information added to biographies of living persons. I removed the content you added to the G-Eazy article one time (not multiple times) because the text is potentially defamatory, and it is not adequately supported by the sources you provided.
The HipHopDX page you referenced quotes @donaldglover's tweet, which says:

i hope i become so big and and so white that G-Eazy will say “damn, this nigga is white” and everyone will agree and nod.

Nothing in the quoted tweet provides any support for your claim that G-Eazy used the "n-word", and the page doesn't mention G-Eazy outside of this tweet.
The HotNewHipHop page states:

G-Eazy's controversial use of the n-word is mentioned

The phrase "controversial use of the n-word" links to a Twitter search results page for the query g-eazy n word, which is unreliable (as a page of user-generated content) and doesn't provide any information supporting your claim. This falls far short of the standard of verifiability required by the biographies of living persons policy. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and a brief mention on a website doesn't suffice.
When editors add contentious and poorly sourced material about a living person, Wikipedia's policy instructs other editors to remove it. That is what happened here. In the future, please make sure that any information you add is adequately supported by reliable sources, especially if the information is about a living person. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 21:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Very rude welcome to Wikipedia

Newslinger,

At the top of your talk page, there is guidance that users should:

- Be polite, and welcoming to new users - Assume good faith - Avoid personal attacks - For disputes, seek dispute resolution

Your message accusing me of being a paid contributor (I know that the "weasel words" of "give the impression" keep your message from being a direct accusation, nonetheless, the accusation is implied) violates at least the first two, and probably the first three, of Wikipedia's guidelines for discussion.

I am not a paid contributor, and have no financial interest in any Wikipedia site, nor in the organization about which I have written.

Please adhere to Wikipedia's discussion standards in future communications with me.

An appropriate apology on your part would include your reasons for making such an accusation--this would also make your comment useful instead of merely abusive. As a new user, if I choose to write anything here again, I will thus be able to avoid confusing other editors.

Cordially, Howardcp6 (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Howardcp6, thank you for disclosing your affiliation as a ReGroup Foundation board member on your user page. The message I posted to your talk page was a standard template message (Template:Uw-paid1) directed at editors who are closely associated with a company or organization. I was not accusing you of being a paid contributor, and the message was not intended to be abusive.
After reviewing the wording on the template, it appears to be too harsh considering that you have already revealed your affiliation on your user page. I've replaced the message with a milder conflict of interest message (Template:Uw-coi).
I'm sorry for giving you the impression that you've been attacked. If you dislike the wording of Template:Uw-paid1, you can voice your concerns on its talk page at Template talk:Uw-paid1.
Welcome to Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 06:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank You

Newslinger,

Thank you for your thorough reply--I was unaware of the FAQs for organizations, and will review them carefully before making further edits.

And I do not recall including my affiliation with ReGroup on my user page, because, as a new user, I was unaware that such information was of use or interest to anybody. I appreciate the efforts of whomever did that for me, and I'm guessing it was you. That was very kind.

I apologize for the confrontational tone of my earlier note, and thank you for the information you've provided and the work you are doing to keep Wikipedia clean.

Respectfully, Howardcp6 (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Howardcp6, I actually wasn't the person who included that information on your user page. The diff shows that someone made the change using your Wikipedia account, so I hope you're keeping your account and your computer secure.
Almost all editors use template messages for convenience, since rewriting the same message over and over again would be very tedious. Unfortunately, the wording in Template:Uw-paid1 is unusually aggressive for a "level 1" template, which is supposed to be gentle advice. Now that I've learned how this template can send the wrong message, I'll definitely be using it less often.
Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, and I hope you enjoy being an editor here. If you have any questions about editing, just ask me on this page and I'll be happy to help. — Newslinger talk 11:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


Guess it WAS me, then! Thanks for your work here.

Howardcp6 (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Request on 16:58:07, 18 October 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by J64372

Newslinger,

Thank you for reviewing my new submission. Since the article was rejected based on the use of academic references which "only offer passing mentions of" the topic, would inclusion of more such references be sufficient to meet notability guidelines? This is a commonly used source of reagents for research, so it wouldn't be difficult to find dozens of published research papers citing the topic, including from "high impact" journals. To me, this seems to make it very notable, but I confess I fail to fully understand the notability criteria.

J64372 (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi J64372, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, adding more sources that provide only passing mentions of VectorBuilder would not qualify the company for an article. Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for companies requires at least 2 sources that provide significant coverage of VectorBuilder (in addition to being independent, reliable, and secondary sources).
These requirements were put into place because it is very difficult to write an encyclopedia article that meets Wikipedia's core content policies (neutrality, no original research, and verifiability) without access to sources meeting these criteria, even if the company is successful or well-known.
If you're unable to find the necessary sources, VectorBuilder would not be eligible for an article at this time. You're welcome to submit the draft again if new sources materialize in the future. — Newslinger talk 00:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

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

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

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal
Project updates
  • ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
  • There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
New scripts

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

On the article about Li Pei

Dear Newslinger, thank you very much for your guidance. I have fleshed out the article with more details and added references into it. More importantly, I've re-written the whole thing with my own language. Hope this time it won't get copyrights issues. I published it under my personal page : User:Hongkongneteyes/Li Pei . If it's OK after your review, please kindly advise how to move it out as a normal article. Many thanks, HKN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hongkongneteyes (talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hongkongneteyes, and thanks for writing the Li Pei article again in your own words. It looks like Robert McClenon has already accepted the article. I've just reviewed it, and all of the content looks good so far. If you have any questions about editing, please feel free to ask me. — Newslinger talk 10:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Bhagalpur

St. Teresa's School is a very prestigious school in Bhagalpur. U can search and get many results about it on Google. Just enter 'Saint Teresa's School Bhagalpur' and results will show. But as it wasn't present on Bhagalpur Wikipedia page, I tried to edit that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pr1997 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Pr1997, and welcome to Wikipedia! A good rule of thumb is to avoid adding entries to lists unless the entry already has an article on Wikipedia. Since St. Teresa's School doesn't have an article on Wikipedia, I encourage you to write the article first, and then add the school to the Bhagalpur list afterward. Please see the guide on your first article for more details. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 17:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

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

Hello Newslinger,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
  • Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Newslinger. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

For your work on WP:RSP. feminist (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Feminist! A lot of the credit goes to MrX for being bold enough to start the list in the first place, and I also appreciate your contributions to the page.
To answer your question from your edit summary, I think the stale icon would be appropriate there. We don't currently have a strict rule for how many years a source has to go undiscussed before the icon should be added, but it's consistent with the other entries when you sort the table by the "Last" column.​ — Newslinger talk 08:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Nisroch

The user that created the article Nisroch copied most of the text over from the article Ninurta, which I wrote earlier this year. That article uses sfn citations that link to a bibliography with full entries for each of the sources. The reason why the sources were not in the article Nisroch was because the person who created that article apparently forgot to copy the sources out of the bibliography for the article Ninurta. If you restore the page, I can copy the sources over from the bibliography at Ninurta and the article will be fully sourced. That is what I was planning to do, as soon as I had a chance, but I was unable to do it at the time that the article was first created and now the article seems to have been moved to draft space. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I genuinely have no idea what to make of this edit to the article, which I have now reverted. Apparently someone is trying to use Wikipedia to advertise for some kind of cryptocurrency called "Fieldcoin." Again, I have no idea why this person chose that particular article to post this massive piece of spam. There have been so many edits going on there that it is hard to keep track of everything. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Katolophyromai, thanks for the clarification! Unfortunately, I need an administrator to delete the redirect at Nisroch before I can move the draft back to article space. In the meantime, you can add the sources from Ninurta to Draft:Nisroch and then click the "Submit your draft for review!" button on the draft page. After the redirect at Nisroch is deleted, I'll move the draft back to article space as soon as possible.
As for the strange edit from Omidmahboobian, I'm sure that was just a coincidence. I don't know why they chose this article to post it, either. — Newslinger talk 21:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
One more thing, I just noticed that you originally redirected Nisroch to Ninurta. If you think this is the best way to go, you can also restore the old redirect at Nisroch, and disregard the draft.​ — Newslinger talk 21:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for advice but I need more help.

Hi,

I asked a question regarding a Draft (Draft:Zenkit) in the Teahouse. Normally I get emails if someone mentions my Name but this time I missed your comment. I can see it through my Notifications but can't find it in the Teahouse to respond to you.

Your answers were pretty positive but you suggested some changes to the article. Because I have a conflict of interest I can't change it myself. Could you suggest a way I can find someone to do this? I read about a Tag to include but I can't find it anymore. And I'm wondering if it's really the right way to get this done? I appreciate your help and advice. Thanks! --Jessica Lu. (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Jessica Lu.! Discussions in the Teahouse are archived after 7 days. You can find your original question and my response at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 867#Need help with an article. In the future, you can search for your old Teahouse discussions using the "Question archived? Go find it!" search box underneath the table of contents on the right-hand side of the Teahouse page. Many talk pages on Wikipedia archive old discussions in the same way. Most of them won't have a search box, but you can still browse through the archives (which are usually in chronological order) to find the discussion you want.
In general, it's okay to directly edit drafts related to topics on which you have a conflict of interest. This is because drafts go through two layers of review from other editors: first through the articles for creation process that allows the draft to be published as an article, and then by a new page reviewer after it is published. So, feel free to edit Draft:Zenkit and make the changes you want. I recommend you use the "Reception" section of the Microsoft Security Essentials article as a model for how to summarize the reviews on Zenkit. (Featured and good articles are great examples of well-written articles on Wikipedia.)
Finally, after Draft:Zenkit is published as an article, the recommended way to make edits on the article is through the {{Request edit}} template. You'll want to use this template on the talk page of the article, which will be Talk:Zenkit after it is published. To ensure that you get a quick response, try to keep your edit requests short, and for more extensive edits, consider submitting multiple small edit requests instead of one large one. ​— Newslinger talk 23:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Newslinger! I will edit it as you suggested. I have just one other question. Is it possible to include international articles and magazines as a reference? They are not in English but it shows the coverage of Zenkit all over the world. Otherwise I just stick to English. --Jessica Lu. (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely! Wikipedia's policy on non-English sources makes it clear that they're perfectly acceptable. If you quote these sources in the article, please be sure to provide English translations of the quotes. Also, it's important to stick with reliable sources regardless of language. ​— Newslinger talk 04:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I edited the article as you suggested but now it's declined because it seems like advertising. So I may need more help with editing. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks! --Jessica Lu. (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jessica Lu., here are a few ways you can improve your draft:
  • Rename the "Reviews and awards" section to "Reception" or "Critical reception", since it's more neutral. The Microsoft Security Essentials used "Reviews and awards" as a subheading under "Reception", but it was justified because the section listed a large number of certifications from independent organizations. That's common for major antivirus programs, but not as common for other types of software, so it's better to change the section name in Zenkit's case.
  • FinancesOnline isn't considered a reliable source since it appears to be a paid listing directory according to their site. Sponsored content should never be used in an article. Please consider removing the FinancesOnline review and awards from the draft.
  • Since Zapier's blog is considered a self-published source, the mention of its "fastest growing new apps" list should also probably be removed.
  • Try not to address the reader in a second-person voice. Consider using the word "users" instead of "you" when describing the PC Magazine review, since it has a more suitable tone for an encyclopedia.
  • It looks like there's a formatting issue in your references. The citation templates generally don't like leading zeroes in the dates, so you should remove them. For example, use "May 2" instead of "May 02". Also, there's a typo in "Dezember" that should be fixed.
  • The reviewer may not have carefully looked over the PC Magazine and ZDNet reviews. I recommend posting a message on Draft talk:Zenkit stating that these two reviews should show that Zenkit passes the general notability guideline.
These recommendations should make your article more appealing to the next reviewer. Remember, there are no deadlines to finishing a draft, and no limit to the number of times you can submit it for review. Good luck with your next draft!​ — Newslinger talk 15:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
That's a lot of RfC closes you've been doing at WP:ANRFC - good work! Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Galobtter, and congratulations on your new adminship! — Newslinger talk 22:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there a guide to the different treatment of iffy sources?

Hi! You seem quite active on the RS noticeboard. I'm trying to find a policy that describes the different levels of classification/filter and what they mean/do. Is there one? Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Found it, I think... Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Legend, right? Chris vLS (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Chrisvls. Yes, that's it! I was just about to reply to you, but you beat me to it by a minute. WP:RSP is still a relatively new page, so if you have any other questions about it, please feel free to ask. — Newslinger talk 04:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again. It certainly seems to me that this new thing -- deprecation -- could use a big chunk of community consensus and policy around it. It's garnered a lot of press attention that could be very consequential for the encyclopedia. (A more concrete thing that I might do is add screenshots or something so you can see what the edit filter actually looks like...) Has there been any kind of broader effort to make a more official policy than the essay? Cheers --Chris vLS (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess I mean more detail, rather than policy/guideline, now that I remember how those terms are used...Chris vLS (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Editors tend to abide by the consensus set by past requests for comments. It's a bit like case law, where community decisions are considered enforceable precedents until they're overturned by future RfCs. You can see this in action at the current Daily Mail RfC that's aimed at overturning the 2017 one. So while we don't have policies beyond what's mentioned in WP:V and WP:RS, most editors still respect the 2017 decision.
As for detailed descriptions, I'm not aware of any writings in Wikipedia namespace (other than WP:DEPRECATED) about deprecating sources. For a long time, WP:DAILYMAIL pointed to the 2017 RfC, and editors just cited the closing summary there. After WP:RSP was created, WP:DAILYMAIL was retargeted to its WP:RSP entry.
If you see any issues with WP:DEPRECATED, please consider improving it. Adding a screenshot sounds really useful, and could provide a great illustration of the edit filter. Eventually, I hope that this essay gains consensus to be promoted to an explanatory supplement (like WP:RSP and WP:SNOW) so editors can feel confident about using it for guidance. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 02:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your helpful contributions and advice at WP:RSP. Your work goes a long way toward making this list a valuable resource for all Wikipedia editors. - MrX 🖋 14:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, MrX! Also, thank you for creating WP:RSP and for starting the RfCs here and here. Your initiative brings long-term benefits for the quality of Wikipedia's content, and helps ensure that readers get information from reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 04:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Newslinger,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.


Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.


Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Art Hack Day

Hi, where can I retrieve the Art Hack Day article. I need to refine it and submit again. I answered all the questions asked but cannot find the article. Thanks. Jon Phillips (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Please restore this page to Draft space. Jon Phillips (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jon Phillips, I see that you've already asked Jimfbleak to restore the Draft:Art Hack Day. In the future, please keep in mind that the best way to restore a speedily deleted page is to ask the administrator who deleted it.
I hope you make good progress on your draft. To maximize your chances of getting it published, I recommend that you remove the lists of participants, and replace them with a summary of the highlights of each year. If you have any questions about editing, please feel free to ask me. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! ​— Newslinger talk 02:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, please take a look at the draft. I did as you recommended and removed redlinks, checked them all. This is a good foundation. Draft:Art Hack Day Jon Phillips (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Great job with the draft! It's much improved over the previous version. Here are two things I'd like to bring to your attention:
  1. Prose is preferred in articles. Please consider changing the "Organizers and founders" and "Participating venues" sections into complete sentences. Since these sections are very short, it might be a good idea to combine them into the "Project model" section, and then change the title of that section to something else. There are also no citations for this content, and it's very important to support any information related to living persons with references.
  2. Content in articles should be based primarily on reliable secondary sources. That's not the case here, since most of the content in this draft is sourced from Art Hack Day's own website, which is a primary source. Try to find secondary sources for the content. (Google News is a great resource, and remember that offline and non-English sources are also eligible.) If secondary sources aren't available, it may be a good idea to remove the content from the article, since it would constitute undue weight.
Once you think your draft is ready to be reviewed, just click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of Draft:Art Hack Day, and it will be put into the review queue.​ — Newslinger talk 00:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Thanks, K.e.coffman. Happy holidays! — Newslinger talk 00:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

'A page you created emails'

Hi, First of all I want to thank you for the updates and suggestions you made on the page I created. The query I had was regarding the emails I keep getting which have the subject 'A page you created was linked on Wikipedia....'. I wanted to understand how these links are made and should I also be creating these links to other pages with similar topics.Thanks Manoj Nair (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Manoj Nair, and welcome to Wikipedia! When page link notifications are turned on for your account, you'll be alerted whenever someone links to a page you created, such as /e/ (operating system), from another page on Wikipedia. "Links" here refer to page links. You can see a list of all of the links to the /e/ (operating system) article at Special:WhatLinksHere//e/_(operating_system). If you would prefer not to be notified about these page links, you can turn off the notifications at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo.
I hope this answers your question. If you have any other questions about editing, please don't hesitate to ask me. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!​ — Newslinger talk 06:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Newslinger, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you, Dreamy Jazz, and happy holidays! — Newslinger talk 21:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Newslinger. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

DXL Programming (DOORS eXtension Language (DXL))

Hi, Will update the article with more reliable independent sources, don't make it as sub topic. Thanks. --Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Dineshkumar Ponnusamy. I searched for sources online, and unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of DXL. If you do find these sources, please add them to the article and mention them in the deletion discussion. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 06:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed move of DXL

I've commented at Talk:DXL_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_29_December_2018, so this is just a courtesy pingback... as it stands, the hatnote at DXL proposes it be moved to DXL (disambiguation) which I doubt was your intention. I've suggested Domino XML which is used in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE (as two adjacent links) but have no strong feelings.

I imagine as nominator you are in the best position to change the hatnote. Any change I made would be arbitrary. 178.164.139.37 (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the mistake! I've amended the requested move to also move DXL to Domino XML. — Newslinger talk 22:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources/Uses

Hi Newslinger. Is there some reason why you added this back in? I removed it because it broke the templates that I added to the WP:RSP and that I explained on the talk page Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources/Uses. Also, hardcoding CSS into a template in this way is not really a good idea anyway.- MrX 🖋 02:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, MrX. Sorry about that. I've changed it back. I noticed that the column was left-aligned, and thought that I had forgotten to center it. I didn't realize that you removed the centering to make the {{show}} template work properly. — Newslinger talk 02:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
No worries. I'm sure there's another way to center everything in the column, but the few things I've tried so far have not worked. The lack of centering is not really conspicuous anyway, except for the [show] links.- MrX 🖋 02:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brian Kolfage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page War zone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed — Newslinger talk 09:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for all your efforts on the perennial sources list. It's a useful page, and great to see your sustained, careful engagement with it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Rhododendrites! I'm glad you find the list useful, and I'd like to pass the appreciation on to MrX, Feminist, and all of the other editors who have been instrumental to keeping the list in good shape. If you have any suggestions for how to make the list better, we'll do our best to implement them. — Newslinger talk 21:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Boogie2988

Hi Newslinger, I left a source for Boogie2988's divorce details. It was on articlebio.com which states that his divorce with Desiree Williams was finalized on February 13, 2018. --Techoliver298 (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Techoliver298, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! In a recent discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, editors determined that ArticleBio is a questionable source since it has a pattern of mixing up information about different people (most likely because it uses scraped content). Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons is very sensitive regarding the details of any living person, including Boogie2988. However, if you can find a more reliable source for this information, please feel free to add it back into the article with a new citation. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 23:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

2nd RfD announce: Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL

There is another redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 11#Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable and self published sources

@Newslinger: what sources on the Everipedia page do you think are unreliable and reference self-published sources? If you tell me, I could remove them and improve the article. 344917661X (talk 18:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi 344917661X, thanks for volunteering to look over the article. The sources that I believe are unreliable include Prsuit (prsuit.com), Wefunder (wefunder.com), Hacked (hacked.com), CryptoDigest (cryptodigest.com), FT Reporter (ftreporter.com), and ChannelVision Magazine (channelvisionmag.com). There may be more, and I didn't examine the foreign language ones too closely. — Newslinger talk 19:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed that you posted this on Talk:Everipedia, and I have reposted my response there. — Newslinger talk 19:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Water monster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River monster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

no No action. The edit was intentional. — Newslinger talk 09:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Blackbox WM

Hello, I noticed you were an editor in the "free and open-source software task force.", I don't know where or who to ask about this issue, but the Blackbox article, lists an unofficial repository as the repository for the project. The problem is, the unofficial repository is recognized by Arch Linux as the official Blackbox package. I don't know the ruling on what is considered the official version in situations like this, however according to the FSF directory, it still only recognizes the original maintainership which ended in 2005.

The problem with the unofficial repository is that I can't find any reliable sources for calling it a continuation or fork besides itself and to some loose extent the recognition of it as the official Blackbox package provided by Arch, which raises questions of notability of it being mentioned at all. ShimonChai (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, ShimonChai. In general, articles should reflect information in reliable sources (preferably secondary sources). I noticed that the Blackbox article only cited primary sources, so I added two secondary book sources to show that Blackbox is notable. (Google Books is a great resource for older software.) Several books, including SUSE Linux 9 Bible (page 186), mention http://blackboxwm.sourceforge.net as the website for Blackbox, and I would use this site instead of an unofficial repository. I do note that the site appears to be offline, so it might be helpful to add the {{Dead link}} template after the URL. Thanks for working on this article, and please let me know if you have any questions! — Newslinger talk 03:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Facebook Research

Hello Newslinger,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Facebook Research for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Disputed at Talk:Facebook Research § Contested deletion. The Facebook Research page is a redirect, not an article. — Newslinger talk 12:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Going commando, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mobility (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed — Newslinger talk 11:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Karita clan

Hi,

Thank you for your feedback. Here's a link which explains the origin and a little background history of the Karita clan, which was rather one of the smaller clans back in the Heian / Kamakura period. "Major daimyo of Miyagi prefecture" on Historical warehouse</ref> Made it easier for you to upload a screenshot with an explanation.

If you have questions, feel free to ask. Thanks.

Greetings,

Zaagmans

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaagmans! (talk • contribs) 09:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Zaagmans!, and thanks for continuing to work on the Karita clan draft. I see that you have added three more sources for a total of four, and that you have submitted Draft:Karita clan for review. Unfortunately, I am not proficient enough in Japanese to determine whether the newly added sources are enough to pass the notability guideline. Some of the sources embed Japanese characters in images, which makes it hard for me to use an online translator. I'm a little concerned about sources #1 and #2, since they appear to be self-published sources, which are not considered reliable.
I can give you faster feedback if you tell me who the original authors are for each of the sources cited in Draft:Karita clan. Can you please provide me with this information? ​— Newslinger talk 10:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I updated the draft and deleted the 2 links you were concerned about. I added new links which look - to me - more reliable. I understand little Japanese, but my knowledge is very limited. There's one English link of the castle mentioning something about this clan, but it appears to be self-published. This is all I could find.

If you have questions, just ask. Thank you.


Zaagmans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaagmans! (talk • contribs) 12:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Zaagmans!. I've reviewed the sources:
  1. Monumento: This a primary source, since it's a picture of a sign at the Shiroishi Castle. The general notability guideline requires secondary sources, so this one doesn't count.
  2. History-land.com: This appears to be a self-published source, according to a translation of the site's description on its home page. ("The manager loves history. I hope to introduce the knowledge I gained so far in an easy-to-understand manner so that the charm of history can be conveyed. Through this site, history is interesting, I would be happy if you think that I knew such a thing for the first time.")
  3. Environment and history of Zao Town: I translated this PDF, and it looks like most of the content is a geographical description of Zaō, Miyagi, with only a passing mention of Karita/Kariya. Sources need to have significant coverage of the topic to count toward the general notability guideline.
  4. A Collection of Photographs of Japanese Castles: This is a self-published source, according to the site's introduction. ("I have travelled throughout Japan in order to capture and publish a range of photographs depicting castle ruins and the sites of prominent castles. Although some of these pictures may be considered somewhat amateurish, I hope that they can at least provide you with a glimpse of the beauty and magnificence of Japanese castles.")
  5. World of Kamon: I have no idea if this source is reliable or not. I'm seeking input from other editors at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § World of Kamon/家紋World (harimaya.com/kamon) for Karita clan, and you are welcome to participate in the discussion.
  6. Shiroishi Castle: As the website of Shiroishi, Miyagi, this is also a primary source.
Since you need at least two qualifying sources for the Karita clan to meet the general notability guideline, I'm afraid that I can't accept the draft at this time. The Karita clan is almost certainly notable, but we'll need better sources before the draft can be published. If you can find some books (Google Books is a good source) or other reliable sources, and include them into the draft, then the draft will be eligible to be published. — Newslinger talk 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi,

Thank you for your reply. And you are right. In that case, since there is hardly information about this clan to be found on the net, I'll leave it for now. Thank you very much for your time.

Greetings.

Zaagmans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaagmans! (talk • contribs) 09:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

​No problem, and thanks for your efforts. Please note that the Resource Request page is available to you, and you can also consult the folks at WikiProject Japan for assistance. Unfortunately, my Japanese language skills are too limited to be helpful for this topic. — Newslinger talk 09:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Your closure

Hi, I feel that your closure here does not take into account my serious concerns regarding the "location" parameter. In addition, I'm surprised this got closed anyway, as the discussion seemed to be still ongoing. --Randykitty (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty, I've undone the closure to allow for further discussion. While you did state your objections to the location parameter multiple times in the discussion, I omitted it from the closing summary because I didn't think your arguments gained enough traction with other editors. When the RfC is ready to be closed, you or any other editor may request another closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. — Newslinger talk 11:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! This discussion was not well-advertized and I came to it quite late, but I think that my arguments merit more discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
​No problem. Template:Centralized discussion is looking pretty empty, so you might want to consider adding it there. — Newslinger talk 12:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Excellent closes at WP:ANRFC

Hi Newslinger. Thank you for your prolific excellent closes at WP:ANRFC. I enjoy reading your detailed closing rationales. Thank you for being responsive to editors' queries about your closes like at the Help talk:Citation Style 1#RFC on publisher and location in cite journal discussion. Cunard (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cunard, I'm glad that you enjoyed reading them, and I'd like to thank you as well for ensuring that RfCs get listed at WP:ANRFC. An up-to-date queue of RfCs that need to be closed is essential to Wikipedia, and you're clearly the top contributor in this area. I appreciate all of the work you've done! — Newslinger talk 01:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your very kind words! :) Cunard (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
​You're welcome. — Newslinger talk 02:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#RfC on names of transgender contestants

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#RfC on names of transgender contestants. (I realize you were the closer, not a participant, in the previous RfC on the related subject, but some participants were missed so for thoroughness and neutrality I'm adding everyone I saw comment in any form.) Innisfree987 (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Newslinger,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

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

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Advice

Please disregard, I found the correct area to ask this question. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.100.141 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. Welcome to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 21:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Wampler Pedals

Hi, I've taken a pass at this article (Draft:Wampler Pedals) and updated the content considerably to expand on the brand's history, relevance, and reach in their industry. I was hoping you could see if it has improved enough to warrant removing your flagging of the piece. Thank you! Potatowrite (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Potatowrite, and thanks for taking the time to improve the draft. As it stands right now, the sources cited in the draft are enough to show that Wampler Pedals is notable. However, the tone of the draft is a bit too promotional, and this needs to be addressed before the draft can be accepted. Some suggestions:
  1. Consider combining the "Artist Collaborations" and "Associated Artists" sections into a single section about the company's association with artists.
  2. Prose is generally preferred over lists, especially when the lists are short. Consider rewriting the list of products and artists into complete sentences.
  3. The sentence mentioning the company's Facebook group should be removed, unless the group is covered by an independent reliable source.
  4. Some parts of the draft rely exclusively on self-published sources, which are considered generally unreliable. Sentences like the one mentioning Boutique Amps Distributors should probably be removed.
  5. Section headings should be in sentence case, not title case. For example, Design and Fabrication Process should be titled Design and fabrication process.
Once these issues are addressed, another reviewer will look over the article. Please note that past reviews don't count against the draft in future reviews – they're there to help keep track of the draft's progress. There are no deadlines to finishing a draft, and no limit to the number of times you can submit it for review. Good luck! — Newslinger talk 05:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


Thank you,Newslinger! I've gone through the text and tried to update the formatting to remove lists and corrected the section case. I've also found an independent source that cites the FB group as a relevant source of guitar pedal expertise. In addition, I've found additional sourcing for the distributor that was self-cited. Finally, I've taken a pass at the text and attempted to remove any puffery and promotional language that snuck in when I was summarizing the sources. I hope the current revision is a bit closer to what you would consider objective. If you see any other major issues, I would be happy to hear about them and see if I can eliminate them and improve the piece. Potatowrite (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Much better! Your draft is improving with each revision. Here are several more things you can address:
  1. Currently, the majority of the draft's information on the company itself (not its products) is based on interviews with Brian Wampler. Interviews with a company representative are in a gray area where some editors don't consider them independent sources. If available, try finding more reliable sources that are independent from the company and add citations to those sources in the "History" and "Design and fabrication process" sections.
  2. Try to keep the wording as factual and unopinionated as possible. For example, words like "guru" and "infamous" should probably be replaced with more neutral words. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch for a list of words and phrases that are generally not recommended in articles.
  3. Citation markers should be placed after punctuation (including periods and commas), not before. See WP:CITEFOOT for an example.
  4. I would remove the reverb.com citation, since online storefronts are considered self-published sources, and the sentence is already supported by 2 other sources.
After you make the necessary improvements, another reviewer will provide their opinion and make a decision. Thanks for your hard work. ​— Newslinger talk 08:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again,Newslinger! I've gone through gone through and updated the placement of all citations and located an additional local news source that was able to corroborate the information from interviews. I removed the source you mentioned and also updated the wording further. I added one additional section on the company's issues with name changes (they've had a string of products they've been forced to change the name of over the past several years). Hopefully the current draft is an improvement over the last. Potatowrite (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

​No problem. You've done a lot to improve the quality of the draft. I'm still a bit unsure about whether the sources are strong enough to pass the notability guideline for corporations, so I've asked other reviewers for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk § Second opinion on Draft:Wampler Pedals's notability. They'll let us know whether the draft can be published, or if it needs additional high-quality sources to pass the review. — Newslinger talk 22:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Newslinger, I really appreciate your help on this. If it helps, the sources seem to be more or less around the same as comparable pages that exist for boutique pedal manufacturer such as JHS Pedals and Keeley Electronics, if I'm viewing those right. Wampler operates nationally and internationally, but as far as I can tell their footprint is just such that most of their coverage is of the founder or other issues related to him and their products. (I'm guessing their not employing folks directly in the area doesn't help them in the local press, since their stuff is made elsewhere in the country). If there are any particular types of sources that would help let me know and I can look for them. Potatowrite (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

​Thanks for the comparisons. I've accepted the draft. Ideally, I would hope for at least one of the sources to have extended in-depth coverage of the company (such as this American Songwriter article for Santa Cruz Guitar Company, although not necessarily as long), but it looks like the Wampler Pedals article is at least as strong as articles on similar companies, and I was perhaps being too strict on the sourcing. Thanks again for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 21:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
​ Thank you again. I will keep an eye out for new sources on this to add that are stronger. I've got another pedal company article I need to revise to improve, so I'll see if my net for that article doesn't catch something for this one as well! Potatowrite (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Apple Inc.

Hello Newslinger,

You've been identified either as a previous member of the project, an active editor on Apple related pages, a bearer of Apple related userboxes, or just a hoopy frood.

WikiProject Apple Inc. has unexpectedly quit, because an error type "unknown" occured. Editors must restart it! If you are interested, read the project page and sign up as a member. There's something for everyone to do, such as welcoming, sourcing, writing, copy editing, gnoming, proofreading, or feedback — but no pressure. Do what you do, but let's coordinate and stay in touch.

See the full welcome message on the talk page, or join the new IRC channel on irc.freenode.net named #wikipedia-en-appleinc connect. Please join, speak, and idle, and someone will read and reply.

Please spread the word, and join or unsubscribe at the subscription page.

RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) and Smuckola on behalf of WikiProject Apple Inc. - Delivered 15:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Lisa Littman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lisa Littman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Littman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Safrolic (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Spacetoon ‎

Spacetoon 1 Hari Space Anak Untuk HG 3 Pui --Guoyodu (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Guoyodu, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying. Please use an online translator like Google Translate or Bing Translator if you need help communicating in English. Also, please do not remove content from articles like Spacetoon without an adequate explanation. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 16:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

VARDA amendment

You removed: https://www.response-technologies.com/news/entry/how-portable-alarms-impact-private-security

But it was informative in the sense that it gave a bit of history on the VARDA device:

In 1968, the voice-activated radio dispatched alarm (VARDA), was invented. It is a portable device that, when activated, will broadcast a message to the dispatch channel, allowing officers to immediately respond to the scene for further investigation. Although the VARDA was originally designed for law enforcement applications such as repeat break-ins, domestic violence issues and metal/equipment theft, its concept has been adapted over time to address a variety of needs in the private sector."

I added the link for the sake of attribution, not for promotional purposes, please fix

I did a preliminary Google search on the subject matter and the information is scant at best.

67.80.29.78 (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I've re-added "How Portable Alarms Impact Private Security" as a citation and a further reading entry in the Voice-activated radio-dispatched alarm article. The article was originally from Security magazine, so I linked to this page to avoid promoting the company. — Newslinger talk 16:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry I think we accessed "the critical section" the same time, I placed it as a footnote, if I did it incorrectly please feel free to correct.


I turned the footnote into a non-promo link 67.80.29.78 (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC) 67.80.29.78 (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for redirecting the link to Security magazine. I've consolidated the references and added a "References" section. I appreciate the work you've done so far. Please feel free to ask me if you have any questions about editing in the future. — Newslinger talk 16:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I've just removed it from the "Further reading" section again, because the section shouldn't duplicate links that are already in the references. The citations are still there. — Newslinger talk 16:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of I Admit (R. Kelly song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article I Admit (R. Kelly song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BMO4744 -- BMO4744 (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For being kind and supportive, and for apologizing freely, even when your actions were reasonable.[5] The English Wikipedia would be a more welcoming community, and contributing here would be more fun, if we all followed your example. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, WhatamIdoing! I was actually following your example. Your preceding message was a timely reminder to be welcoming to new editors, as their interest in a topic can be a valuable asset to the encyclopedia. Assuming good faith is key to retaining new editors, and I will make my best effort to ensure that new editors feel comfortable on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 22:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
It looks like we bring out the best in each other. :-D WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

A Regular Epic Final Battle

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! GIVE REGULAR SHOW BACK OR DIE!! --190.247.31.32 (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, please don't remove reliable sources from articles without an adequate explanation. Your edit can still be viewed in the article history at Special:Diff/888491649. — Newslinger talk 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, Because Cartoon Network don't have Regular Show or Adventure Time, i told you the series finales of Regular Show and Adventure Time 👎🏻? --190.247.31.32 (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I've restored part of your changes, but kept the citation to The A.V. Club that was removed in your previous edit. In the future, please don't remove a citation to a reliable source unless you're also removing the text that it's attached to. — Newslinger talk 15:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, Also i'm gonna make a campaign called "Save Gumball" is a campaign to the creator of Gumball to stop ending his show like MrBeast uses the billboard to promote PewDiePie againt T-Series. --190.247.31.32 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia doesn't allow advocacy, your campaign would not stick here. I recommend using an online petition site like Change.org, instead. — Newslinger talk 06:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of I Admit (R. Kelly song)

The article I Admit (R. Kelly song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:I Admit (R. Kelly song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BMO4744 -- BMO4744 (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:GNG versus WP:NCORP

Hi, thanks for your note at WP:Articles for deletion/FullReader. I'm still developing my understanding of the notability guidelines, so I haven't come here to tell you you're wrong - I'm just looking to find out how you arrived at the conclusion that software is covered by GNG rather than NCORP. The first sentence of NCORP explains that it covers whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service. Fullreader is an article dedicated solely to a product - the company that produced it is mentioned in passing - it seems to me that NCORP applies. Is this one of the unwritten rules that you pick up as you go along? Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 08:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, Girth Summit, as I didn't know that WP:NCORP could be interpreted this way. The language in WP:NCORP indicates that software developed by a company/organization (mentioned in the article) would fall under its scope, while software developed by an individual or an unknown author would fall under WP:GNG. I think it's strange that software is held to different notability standards depending on who it's developed by. But with the lack of a subject notability guideline for software (WP:NSOFT is just an essay), your interpretation appears to be correct. Ultimately, I don't think there is too much of a difference, as I've always used WP:CORPDEPTH as a detailed guide for WP:GNG, since the same logic applies to general topics. Thanks again for taking the time to explain your reasoning here. — Newslinger talk 08:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
No worries - I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something, I am fairly new to this. I agree with you by the way on the slight oddity about software developed by a company versus that developed by an individual, but as you say NCORP is really just GNG with some more flesh on the bones, so there's not really a major disparity. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 08:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Short descriptions

Hi. Saw that you're adding short descriptions to articles. Thanks for doing that. But I wanted to point out that they should be brief, 40 or less characters, as per Wikipedia:Short description, "The short description should be as brief as possible. A target of 40 characters has been suggested, but this can be exceeded when necessary." Take care, and keep up the good work. Onel5969 TT me 11:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

​Okay, I'll try to target 40 characters from now on. Thanks for the pointer. — Newslinger talk 11:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of I Admit (R. Kelly song)

Hello! Your submission of I Admit (R. Kelly song) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dirk Beetstra T C 08:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Deletion mention

Template:Deletion mention has been nominated for merging with Template:Notified. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The Points Guy

As the editor who originally requested to blacklist The Points Guy and a participant at the RfC regarding this website, can you take a look at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#"News" and "Reviews" sections of The Points Guy (thepointsguy.com/news, thepointsguy.com/reviews), please? (Warning: large wall of text.) I'm tired. Thanks, feminist (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Feminist, sorry for the delayed response. I've suggested a new RfC as a way forward at the spam whitelist discussion. — Newslinger talk 05:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Secure Browser Proposed Changes

I recently updated the Avast Secure Browser page with some mundane changes. However, I have more edits here that have more to do with tone and neutrality and didn’t seem appropriate for me to make with a COI. I shared these changes on the Talk page two months ago, but haven’t gotten anyone to review.

Since you responded to my other post in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, I was hoping you might also be willing to take a look at the proposed changes in the link above. Empey at Avast (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Empey at Avast, please consider following the instructions at Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. Once you add the {{request edit}} template to the top of your request, it will be placed into the queue for another editor to review. — Newslinger talk 08:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for I Admit (R. Kelly song)

On 7 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article I Admit (R. Kelly song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that R. Kelly's 19-minute song "I Admit", which contains no criminal admissions, was described as an act of trolling and compared to O. J. Simpson's book If I Did It? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/I Admit (R. Kelly song). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, I Admit (R. Kelly song)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Deadline Hollywood home page screenshot.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Deadline Hollywood home page screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Pretribulation rapture declined

Thanks for reviewing my submission. When I began my topic I had in mind that I would post a contrasting view to the Post-tribulation rapture wiki. It seemed clearly to be arguing for a post-tribulation point of view. I thought I would present a contrasting view. I have read through it a couple of times and fail to see how the article I submitted is any less neutral than this seems. It actually seemed quite slanted to its own point of view. I made a number of wording edits to minimize the sound of partiality. It is not easy to present a point of view and sound 100% nueutral. I know the Post-trib article is not completely neutral. Could you give me an example from my article, whether general or specific, of how I might approach presenting it with more neutrality. I'd like to give it one more go.- Thanks, E.Enberg Eenberg1 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Eenberg1, thanks for working on Draft:Pretribulation rapture. The main issue with the draft is that it resembles a thesis and not an encyclopedia article. I recommend you take some time to read through two of Wikipedia core content policies, verifiability and no original research, as well as the Manual of Style guideline on tone.
  • Please make sure that all content is supported by a reliable source: peer-reviewed academic journals and books backed by reputable publishers are preferred, while blogs and self-published sources (e.g. enduringword.com and individual ministries) are discouraged. There is a lot of content in the draft that is not backed by citations. If you aren't able to find reliable sources for a statement, it would be best to exclude the statement from the article.
  • Interpretations of primary sources (e.g. verses from the Bible) must be supported by a reliable secondary source, since original research is not allowed. Excerpts from the Bible must be properly quoted (i.e. quotation marks should be used for direct quotes) and introduced with correct grammar.
  • Don't use the phrase "we read", which is unencyclopedic. It's best to state things in a third-person voice, i.e. "This document states...".
Personally, I don't think the Post-tribulation rapture article is a very good model, since it is littered with {{Original research inline}} tags. Rapture § Pre-tribulational Premillennialism is a much better starting point, and could serve as an outline for your draft. You may also want to ask WikiProject Christianity for assistance on their noticeboard. I hope this helps. ​— Newslinger talk 21:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science - Missouri

@Newslinger: Hello, I am curious if you could review the following page for me and see if you can help me to figure out the appropriate next steps to get this page to be ready for another review and hopefully approval. I have been working on it and believe that it has some good content and has several sources. However, it appears that the reviewers do not agree. I feel like I am stuck and would appreciate any help that you can provide. Thanks in advance. Asclsmo (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Asclsmo, please refer to the notability guideline for organizations, which states that your draft needs significant coverage from multiple (i.e. at least 2) independent reliable sources to be eligible for publication. Directory listings and passing mentions are non-significant, and don't count. Primary sources and sources that are closely affiliated with ASCLS-MO are non-independent, and don't count. Blogs, self-published sources, and social media posts are unreliable, and are strongly discouraged. WP:ORGDEPTH gives detailed examples of the types of sources that would be acceptable. Once you think the draft is ready to be published, you can resubmit it for review and it will be placed into the queue. — Newslinger talk 07:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for cleaning up NNDB links! Appreciate it. Marquardtika (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Marquardtika! If you know of any other questionable sources that are being inappropriately linked to or cited on a large scale, please bring them up on the reliable sources noticeboard, and WikiProject Reliability will take care of them. — Newslinger talk 02:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, will do! Marquardtika (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Newslinger,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion/Work you might be interested in

Given your stewardship of RSP you might be interested in this related project being undertaken by an NPP, if you weren't already aware. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Barkeep49! I've posted my thoughts at the discussion, and I've also invited editors on other Wikipedia talk pages to express their opinions. — Newslinger talk 04:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

CoinDesk as a source

Hi Newslinger, hope you're well. I wanted your advice on CoinDesk as a source. I see the discussion here, but no strong consensus. I bring this up now because an editor is going about removing all references to CoinDesk from articles. This has left a big void in coverage of articles. None of these articles rely on CoinDesk to establish notability (e.g. CryptoKitties, Vitalik Buterin, Andreessen Horowitz, etc.) but many claims are now left without a source. It goes without saying that extreme care should be taken to make sure the CoinDesk articles are not opinion or puff pieces, but I do not think a blanket removal of all CoinDesk sources is warranted, especially because it feels a lot of content is now 'orphaned' for no good reason. What is your best suggestion here? --Molochmeditates (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Molochmeditates, and thanks for bringing this to my attention. The CoinDesk RfC concluded that CoinDesk (RSP entry) shouldn't be used to establish notability (i.e. it doesn't count as one of the sources required for a "keep" !vote in Articles for deletion under the WP:GNG, WP:CORP, and WP:BIO guidelines). However, since there was no consensus on whether CoinDesk should be considered a questionable source, that RfC doesn't support a blanket removal of all CoinDesk references, especially if it would leave statements unsourced.
I recommend creating a new discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard with a list of affected articles (each accompanied by links to the diffs where the CoinDesk references were removed). The community will then decide whether these CoinDesk references should be present in the articles. ​— Newslinger talk 18:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your guidance. I've created an RfC for this per your suggestion. --Molochmeditates (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Your initial comment in the discussion looks comprehensive, but there's a small problem: the discussion is referred to as an "RfC" without having the {{rfc}} tag. I recommend doing one of two things:
  • If you want to designate the discussion as a request for comment, you'll need to insert the {{rfc}} tag immediately after the section heading and select at least one RfC category. You'll also want to shorten your initial comment into a brief and neutral RfC statement. Arguments and extended content belong in a "Survey" or "Discussion" section below the RfC statement.
  • Otherwise, if you don't want to designate the discussion as an RfC, just remove the "RfC" from the section title and the "Note" in your initial comment.
​ — Newslinger talk 06:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Newslinger thank you very much for your patience with the process (as you can tell, this is my first RfC). I've added the RfC tag per your suggestion, and a short neutral question. Rest of the post is under a Survey section. If you think the information can be organized better, I would appreciate if you can provide any further suggestions (or of course feel free to edit the original). --Molochmeditates (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Molochmeditates, thanks for applying the change. There's one more thing: although you started the RfC, you're still eligible to express your opinion in the survey. Usually, editors who want to take a stance on the RfC use a bold !vote (similar to the Articles for deletion format) somewhere in the survey to clarify their position to the eventual discussion closer. If you have a strong "Yes" or "No" position on the issue, you would probably want to do this.
You've done a good job following the RfC format. After 30 days, the RfC will be ready for closure, and the results will determine how CoinDesk citations should be treated in articles. — Newslinger talk 19:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I've presented my case, but there may not be many supporters. Crypto articles are a knee-jerk reaction - "let's remove all crypto press!" but the main point is, this means removing a lot of criticisms as well. CoinDesk simultaneously writes both puff pieces and hit pieces. I would like to, as an editor, be able to cite the criticisms at least. You won't find a lot of this material in a Bloomberg. --Molochmeditates (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
​It's unfortunate that many crypto publications are not independent enough to be trusted by more editors. As cryptocurrencies mature, I expect more usable sources to emerge (including trade publications that don't have prominent conflicts of interest). Wikipedia tends to lag behind trade press in many subjects, but the gap is less noticeable for topics that are not as new as crypto. Remember that there is no deadline to work on an article, and you can always add appropriate information when the sources become available. — Newslinger talk 20:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I completely agree with you. I think there are better ways to control for quality though, like extended confirms. The 24 hour revert ban is good too. May be those tools should be used more especially in the interim. --Molochmeditates (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Axios RFC

Hi I may have committed some heinous wikicrime on the Axios RFC because I boldly edited the section in question by adding 2 extra sources that weren't mentioned. I don't know if I should have made a counter proposition first. If this was the case please don't hesitate to revert my edit on the page but if this is done I would like to add an option 4 which I added to the discussion below the survey. I will change my !vote to Option 4 to make this clearer. My apologies. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Domdeparis, your suggested phrasing would make a great addition to the options in Talk:Axios (website) § RfC: Paid Wikipedia editing. Feel free to add it back, but if you do, please ping all of the editors who participated in the RfC to let them know that the RfC statement has changed. Also, since we're already halfway through the 30-day RfC period, please note that your proposal may be at a disadvantage because it will receive less attention. — Newslinger talk 02:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Request on 00:27:44, 6 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Jsc222



Jsc222 (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I have resubmitted with new disclosure that the artist's son Roger Ehrich (retired professor) has provided funds in the interest of the time needed to get this article about his father's history and oral history as an important regional artist in several museums and archives posted on Wikipedia. Sorry for such a late resubmission I have been busy. Thank you, Jsc222 (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jsc222, and thanks for working on the William Ernst Ehrich article. I've accepted your draft, and the article has been published. Please don't worry about needing to finish an article by a particular time, since there is no deadline for submitting a draft. If you'd like to improve the William Ernst Ehrich article further, please consider adding links from the article to related articles and vice versa. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 03:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
​One more thing: are you saying that Roger Ehrich compensated you for writing this article? If that's the case, please read through Wikipedia's policy on paid editing and be sure to disclose the arrangement on your user page and on the article's talk page. The instructions for disclosure are at WP:DISCLOSE. — Newslinger talk 08:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jsc222, I've added the paid editing disclosure to Talk:William Ernst Ehrich. If I had misinterpreted your comment, and you were not paid to edit the William Ernst Ehrich article, then please remove the disclosure from that page. Otherwise, please take some time to read through WP:DISCLOSE and also consider adding a disclosure to your user page. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 04:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Close an RfC?

Hey Newslinger,

Regarding this RfC: a week since the last comment, consensus fairly clear - would you like to close it? François Robere (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi François Robere, in light of the active ArbCom case, I would prefer to be extra cautious with this closure. Since the topic is highly contentious, it would be best to wait for the standard 30-day RfC period to elapse, and then submit a request for closure that explicitly asks for an administrator. One of my previous closures was challenged for being in a contentious area, despite the clear consensus in the discussion, because these closures are sometimes considered inappropriate for non-admins. I hope this helps! — Newslinger talk 20:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Helps? No. But thanks for the reply. :-) François Robere (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Accenture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Big Brother
Cognizant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cognizance

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Newslinger. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty

Please realize that the statue is a direct artwork of Libertas ("The Statue of Liberty is a figure of Libertas, a robed Roman liberty goddess".) The American coins represent Libertas (see the Libertas page). Many other direct representations shouldn't be removed or changed, and your page closing took into account number of editors for each position which is not used in closings (if you closed using the editors count as a criteria maybe another look would be warranted), thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Randy Kryn, and thanks for the note about the Statue of Liberty and the American coins. I'll review every use of Liberty (goddess) to ensure that all of them point to the correct article (Liberty (personification) or Libertas), including coin-related articles. In the move discussion, most editors objected to the previous article title, Liberty (goddess), because it was more ambiguous than the proposed title (which is in line with WP:PRECISION). Although Libertas is also a personification (as you mentioned in your argument), the overall consensus was that the "personification" qualifier distinguished the broader concept of the personification from the more specific Libertas better than the "goddess" qualifier did. As the majority opinion was a valid position that complied with the article titles policy, I believe there was consensus to move. Please feel free to submit a move review if you think my closure should be challenged, or tell me if I misidentify any of the Liberty (goddess) links. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 23:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your extensive answer. Please consider these two paragraphs from the Libertas page:
"In addition, money throughout history has borne the name or image of Libertas. As "Liberty", Libertas was depicted on the obverse (heads side) of most coinage in the U.S. into the twentieth century. The University of North Carolina records two instances of private banks in its state depicting Libertas on their banknotes;[9][10] Libertas is depicted on the 5, 10 and 20 Rappen denomination coins of Switzerland.
"The symbolic characters Columbia who represents the United States and Marianne, who represents France, the Statue of Liberty (Liberty Enlightening the World) in New York Harbor, and many other characters and concepts of the modern age were created, and are seen, as embodiments of Libertas."
Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
To clarify, all of the Liberty (goddess) links originally pointed to the article that is now titled Liberty (personification). After moving Liberty (goddess) to Liberty (personification), I retargeted Liberty (goddess) to Libertas because editors in the move discussion believed that the Roman goddess was more closely associated with the "goddess" qualifier than the broader personification. As Liberty (goddess) now redirects to Libertas, I intend to change back all links to Liberty (goddess) that should point to the broader Liberty (personification), which was the article they pointed to before the page move.
I understand that the Roman goddess Libertas is depicted on the Statue of Liberty and the coins, but I am not so sure about whether the affected pages in the scope of the paragraphs you quoted should point to Liberty (personification) or Libertas. This is because the links originally pointed to the content in Liberty (personification), and I would effectively be changing the target by keeping the Liberty (goddess) links unchanged. Also, the Libertas article focuses on the goddess herself, and is less relevant to the way she is portrayed in culture.
Perhaps the easiest way to resolve this is for me to retarget Liberty (goddess) back to Liberty (personification), which would leave all of the prior link targets unchanged, and revert all of my link changes. The Liberty (goddess) redirect could then be submitted for discussion by any interested editor. Does that sound like an acceptable solution to you? If you want any additional clarification on the above, please let me know.​ — Newslinger talk 00:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The extensive discussions over the move request should have clarified this. I and at least some (I think most or all) of the supporters of the move do not believe that the Statue of Liberty, and the many figures (several male) labelled with "Liberty" on US coins represesent Libertas, nor any goddess except in a loose metaphrical sense. Libertas was not a personification, she was a proper goddess, with priests and temples, who was believed to welcome animal sacrifices. She may be treated as a personificatory goddess by mythologists, but that is different. Randy's position was not supported in that discussion, except for one editor. Many of the articles above need touching up. I think Randy has edited many of them. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Johnbod, I was going to revert Liberty (goddess) to point back to Liberty (personification), but you beat me to it. I have responded at Talk:Liberty (personification) § Liberty (goddess) redirect. — Newslinger talk 00:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Johnbod, please let's now discuss this on article talk pages. I'll just make this one reply to your comment. You seem to be saying that the Statue of Liberty is not specifically of Libertas? If it is not, then both the Statue's page and the Libertas pages have made major mistakes and contain long-term incorrect information, as do other page. That would be a "yikes" mistake in the annals of Wikipedia. What you are implying would be a major historical change for all of these articles, so you should bring it to the Statue of Liberty talk page. I personally do not know what the sources say, so I'm starting from ignorance, and was just going along with what the pages say. If I made the edits which brought that information into those pages then I may have been wrong. I just don't know if I made the edits, and haven't looked. You hint it was probable that it was my edit that brought what you claim is incorrect information onto the page, and if you are correct then my sincere apology in advance. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the SofL is of Libertas in any very meaningful sense. As the article explains perfectly well, it draws on the modern iconographic tradition that is discussed here, especially the style developed in France since the Revolution. There is nothing drawing on Libertas except the general concept, and the long dress. Libertas never has a torch, nor a radiant crown. Ewulp gave some good sources re coins above. I am indeed not happy with the sentence in the lead "The Statue of Liberty is a figure of Libertas, a robed Roman liberty goddess", which has various issues. The treatment in the section lower down is much better. No doubt I'll get round to raising this some time. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, checked, it wasn't me who brought that information to the article. The editors who edit the Statue of Liberty page should be included if such a major change is afoot, so sources can be well researched to find out the validity of the claim. Maybe talk page it there. I see you are already making some good edits, but please leave the claim on the page until it is disproven, as I'd think it would be long-term stable language seen and left there by many editors. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Non admin closure of contentious move request

You closed the move request for WTC Cortlandt, but it was contentious. WP:RMNAC advises against non-admin closing contentious discussions. Please undo your close and allow an admin to close, as the previous non-admin closer did. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, rendered moot. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi JHunterJ, if I had been aware of the request for closure that specifically asked for an administrator, I would not have closed the discussion. The language in WP:RMNAC is quite generous in allowing non-admins to close requested move discussions, but if an editor requests a closure by an administrator, I would respect that request and refrain from closing the discussion. In this case, no editor in the discussion (Talk:WTC Cortlandt station § Requested move 28 May 2019) linked to the request for closure or asked for a closure by an administrator. In the future, if you include a brief comment somewhere in the discussion asking for a closure by an administrator, I would be certain to avoid closing the discussion. Thanks for understanding. — Newslinger talk 02:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CEN is now open!

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recen research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Excellent! I look forward to participating in discussions on the new noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 01:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Facebook Portal

Hello! Your submission of Facebook Portal at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Newslinger,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Facebook Portal

On 5 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Facebook Portal, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a five-star Amazon review of Facebook Portal by a writer, who claimed not to be a "big" Facebook user before buying the device, was traced to a Facebook employee? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Facebook Portal. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Facebook Portal), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newslinger/Archive_1&oldid=1043802047"