Jump to content

User talk:Randykitty/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

Sister journal

You reverted the change I made on "sister journal" page, and said that I should go to the talk page first. I don't seem to be able to actually do anything on the talk page because it's part of WikiProject Academic Journals project - and i can't find a way of talking about the page there. The definition left is incorrect (that is, companion and cascade journals are also sister journals, but all sister journals are not companion journals.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hebbyn (talk • contribs) 10:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Andy Auld

Hello, will you permit me to have a copy of the Andy Auld article that you deleted. I want to continue work on the article. If more RS appears it may be ready some date in the future. Perhaps Draft:Andy Auld or my sandbox? Lightburst (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

  • You mean Andy Auld (pilot), I assume. No, I don't think this is a constructive solution, letting this linger in personal space on the off chance that those sources become available is undesirable. If in-depth reliable sources become available that were not considered in the AfD, you can take it to WP:DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
The deletion was a close call; however, I do not want to go to DRV where other administrators just sanction anything their fellow administrators do (waste of effort and bytes). I thought this was a good solution to work on the article off main space after so many hours were spent by ARS members to work on the article. I would use the word "Incubate" instead of "Linger", it is all a matter of perspective. Lightburst (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for additional clarification regarding a closing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RandyKitty, Several editors, myself included have asked you to please provide more detail regarding your logic related to this closing.[[1]] Thus far you have only said you have nothing more to add [[2]]. WP:ADMINACCT states:Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed.. Please provide more detail relating to your logic related to this closing. As an experienced admin I'm certain that you had sound reasoning but that reasoning is to date opaque to the involved editors. Springee (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Sigh, you really can't give this a rest, do you? I gave a rationale for the closing at the (horrendously long) AfD (which several editors at the DRV remarked as being sufficient, by the way). I added some comments to the DRV, remarking at some point that another editor (Hut 8.5) got my reasoning exactly right and you could see their comment as written by me. Looking back briefly at the AFD, Fae and Drmies presented some very strong and convincing arguments (and yes, I know that you and others did not agree with them, no need to re-litigate that here). Apart from this, I don't think I've anything more to add to what I said at the AfD and DRV and if that isn't enough then drag me to ANI or something like that, because I'm done here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Journal of Modern Dynamics

Dear Randykitty,

Thanks for editing the page and I have a small question and hope you may help. I thought the addition of the editor board information may be helpful for people who see this page. I am looking forward to you opinion. Thanks

Best regards, Mathowenw —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi, my pleasure! As for the board, we never list board members unless there are reliable scondary sources independent of the journal and the board member that discuss the impact of that member on the journal or the other way around. In practice, that usually means negative situations, such as when a board member resigns to protest something that the chief editor or publisher did. See our journal writing guide. --Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear Randykitty,

Thanks a lot! I read the page and then understand your editing. Thanks a lot! Have a nice day!

Best regards, Mathowenw —Preceding undated comment added 17:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Your edit to Journal of Modern Dynamics

Hi Randykitty,

The modification of the name is in the page http://www.aimsciences.org/journal/1930-5311/ if you click the show more and you will see it. Also please see the link https://math.psu.edu/dynsys as another reference.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Best regards,

Mathowenw

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Randykitty,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Works by G. William Domhoff

Hello! You’ve erased the page I’m currently expanding for reasons I don’t quite understand. I am working within the guidelines set out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies so I’m hoping it might have been a mistake. The purpose of a bibliography is to list all of the works by a given author, and Wikipedia states that the notability of an individual work does not need to be justified in this context; the bibliography itself is what what must meet bibliography guidelines. Thanks for your time! I hope we can reach an understanding. I would be happy to provide examples of similar bibliography articles. Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi, Neighborhood Nationalist: No, that was not a mistake. unless an academic is extremely influential and notable (Think Einstein), we just include a selection of their most important works (chosen on the basis of objective criteria independent of the subject) in their bios. Academics are not like (well-known) novelists, where you may expect multiple book reviews of any book that they publish. Indeed, your bibliography of Domhoff does not contain a single independent reference discussing his works (and therefore misses your project's notability guideline). In fact, even the biography of Domhoff is severely lacking in reliable sources that are independent of him (most info seems to come from an interview...) So I recommend that you revert to the redirect, to avoid the time sink that AfD can be. And similar bibliography articles should be redirected in a similar way... --Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The bibliography actually contained three independent references to book reviews and I have already formatted citations for about a dozen more. Might I rescue my project from its redirected fate by adequately sourcing and referencing its inclusions? I believe I can make a very convincing case for the existence of the article via proper citation, I simply have neglected (wrongly) to make that my first priority. Perhaps you could you allow me 24 hours to make such a case to you? Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Read the notability guidelines for stand-alone lists of publications that I linked to above. You don't need references for items that are included. You need references that discuss the body of work, to show that a list of works by Domhoff is independently notable. Such sources rarely exist for academics, unfortunately. Fortunately, though, there are lots of other website (like ResearchGate, Google Scholar, and others where such publication lists can be posted. WP is not intended to host CVs. --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Seriously?

I respect you a lot, but a speedy is not the right way to tackle International Affairs (journal). I see it may have some SPA issues and it may merit an advert/COI tag, or even an AfD, but speedy? What am I missing? Full disclosure, I have no association with it, and the substub I created years ago for it would make me prod it myself these days, but the article today is a totally different beast from what I wrote long ago. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  • An AfD is not the thing to do here, far as I can see, the journal is notable. However, at this point, this "leading" journal featuring "leading" authors may be "highly regarded", but the article is by now so hopelessly promotional that it may be better to start from scratch. Perhaps we should reduce it back to your stub. --Randykitty (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sarcoidosis Vasculitis and Diffuse Lung Diseases

Please take a look at Draft:Sarcoidosis Vasculitis and Diffuse Lung Diseases. I think the journal is notable, but I'm not sure. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Iranian Journal of Pediatric Surgery (IRJPS)

Could you please look at Iranian Journal of Pediatric Surgery http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/irjps/index I haven't created a draft for it. There are some other academic journals listed at http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/ such as http://journals.sbmu.ac.ir/en-jnm If IRJPS isn't notable, then the other journals from the same publisher probably aren't either. Text from website: Iranian Journal of Pediatric Surgery (IRJPS) is a biannual peer-reviewed medical journal dedicated to publishing research of the highest scientific caliber in the field of epidemiologic and clinical medicine regarding pediatric surgery in order to provide the most up to date information for those responsible for the care of pediatric surgical patients. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Eastmain: Best best at knowing if it's got a chance of being kept at AFD through WP:NJOURNALS is look at indexing. Scopus or Science Citation Index is usually good enough. Index Copernicus is a shams index that counts for nothing (or even against) for inclusion purposes. And because this publisher plasters Index Copernicus all over (along side other trivial services like Open J-Gate), I'd be very weary about trusting them about Scopus and Science Citation Index. You can put their ISSN in {{MIAR}} and see what that gets you though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I second what Headbomb said. The IRJPS seems to be a decent journal (it doesn't mention IC and it is in DOAJ), but at this point, there's nothing that indicates notability. Advances in Nursing & Midwifery doesn't look predatory either (it has been around since long before predatory journals came about and doesn't charge authors) and is in CINAHL, but that is all and again no notability is indicated. Like Headbomb, I get suspicious when publishers flaunt indexing in IC, which is a really shady index, but publishers in countries like Iran are apparently not always aware of this, so sometimes honest (but inexperienced) publishers in their enthusiasm just think that it's great to be included in any index (this journal also lists "Global Impact Factor", for example, a fake impact factor). --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Radio Woking

Hi, I would like to ask about undeleting the Radio Woking article which was deleted in the hope that you can restore it. Unfortunately I missed the debate of the article I created for the station. Radio Woking is a community Radio station broadcasting to a wide area covering two boroughs in the UK with a population of 187,000 people. I would like to update the page, and include further links to bolster it's worthyness for it's place on wiki. I must say that one of the links which was dismissed by a user as being unimportant, is on the UK national regulator's web site. Thanks you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tod55 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi, thank you for your time and explaining the situation. I am somewhat confused as I had based the article on other stations in Surrey with the same significance, and some have no references whatsoever on their wiki page, Radio Woking's page by comparison is quite well linked to other independent pages. Category:Radio stations in Surrey. Could you example what makes a radio station significant, or example one of the Surrey stations I should be using as an example. Radio Woking covers quite a large area over two boroughs in two counties, I am not sure why that would not be significant. Also one of the links which was referred to in the previous chat as insignificant was the UK official radio authority OFCOM. Tod55

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2014 CJON cover.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2014 CJON cover.jpg. 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) 17:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Gastrointestinal Nursing

Given that you (and me as well) voted keep in the AFD for the journal Gastrointestinal Nursing back in 2014, I was surprised that you recently (well, in June of this year) tagged it for notability. [3] Did you change your mind about the journal's notability for some reason? IntoThinAir (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Wow, you have an impressive memory. I had completely forgotten about that AfD. I just stumbled upon this article, not realizing that I had ever seen it before, and given that it has no indication of any notability, put a tag on it, as I currently have not much time to do much more. Apparently it's in Scopus and once that has been added to the article (with a reference) the tag can go. --Randykitty (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious draft re-creation

Hi... just wondering about Draft:EAUXMAR. The account Eauxmar created it; you deleted it as G11 a couple of hours later; and then an hour after that, the newly-created account Tammegotchi re-created it. Possible sock or meat puppet situation? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Good stuff. I left a {{uw-agf-sock}} warning with Eauxmar for further emphasis. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, good call, should've thought of that myself! --Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Works by G. William Domhoff

Hello, we spoke previously regarding a deletion nomination for a article I had been working on (Works by G. William Domhoff). After just catching up with the discussion I missed, I believe in my confusion I may have come off as argumentative. First and foremost I’d like to apologize if that was the case.

After reading through the several links you provided to demonstrate my article’s unworthy nature, I must say that I learned quite a bit and my approach to Wikipedia editing has been fundamentally altered. I used to believe that building “directories” or lists of an individual’s total publications was desirable; I now understand this is not the case.

In the interest of brevity, I’ll keep my only remaining question as brief as possible. I believe a selective merge of the article was turned down on the basis that a list of works could be restored from an earlier version of the main article. Alas, in my confusion, I had added 22 (IIRC) referenced reviews of his most notable books to the “Works” article, complete with links to the reviews themselves. As far as I can tell, these references are not recoverable.

My reason for contacting you this evening is to discover if these references (and the references alone) from the deleted article are in any way recoverable. I understand that they were lost through no one’s fault but my own; I should have saved my own work in a timely manner after your rightful nomination for deletion. With that in mind, I would be forever grateful if you would be willing to help me recover that work, if it is even possible to do so at all.

That being said, I understand if my window of opportunity is closed and I must produce that information again.

Thank you for time. Neighborhood Review (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Don't worry, I didn't think you were being argumentative. You'd put a lot of work in that article and then it is not easy when someone comes around and tells you it should be deleted, however justified that may be. If you have email enabled, I can email you the contents of the deleted article. Let me know. --Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
You’re a rockstar! I sincerely appreciate the help. I have just updated and enabled my email so I am now able to receive whenever you find a time convenient to resurrect that text.
I think this might be the proper place to also ask about the license for the G. William Domhoff signature that I uploaded. Is the request for authorship permission a request for me, the creator of the derivative image file, or for G. William Domhoff himself, the originator of the signature? After seeing other articles that included signatures, I was under the impression that signatures were not copyrighted. If you would be able to point me in the direction of where to look for information on this topic I’m sure I can help myself from there!
Thank you again for your time. I may be a noob but I’m eager to learn and rectify my mistakes. :P Neighborhood Review (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 Done --Randykitty (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again! Neighborhood Review (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

G. William Domhoff signature

I’ll keep this brief since you’ve already been so helpful to me recently. You nominated my Wikimedia Commons upload of G. William Domhoff’s signature for deletion, pending a declaration of authorship permissions, and I can’t quite figure out if that is intended for me (the author of the file) or G. William Domhoff himself. From what I read at Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag and elsewhere, it seems that signatures are in the public domain? I’m hoping you can clarify for me the issue with file so I can rectify it, if at all possible. As previously, I thank you for your time. Neighborhood Review (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Cool! I’ll leave you alone for a while haha. Hope you have a great day. Neighborhood Review (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Review

Thanks for your message! I actually have a problem with an article I've created. It's still a draft after almost 3 months. Every sentence has a source. The magazine the article is about, exists and is actually quite influental in Germany. Anhow, I dunno what else I can do. :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmjunkie137 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • There's a big backlog for drafts that need to be reviewed. All you can do is be patient. You could post on a related WikiProject (like the Magazines project), but many of those (like the Magazine project...) are not very active. --Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Randykitty,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 805 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Timothy ‘Bos’ Bullock page

This page was deleted because there was a claim Mr. Bullock was not notable enough. His career spans over 15 years with several Billboard hits and has Grammy nominations. Both Billboard and Grammy affiliations affirm a producer, artist or songwriter as notable. They are coveted accolades that Mr. Bullock has achieved numerous times. I did not see any specific requirements within Wikipedia for ‘notability.’ However, within the Music Industry, someone with Billboard hits with Mainstream artists (artists who have sold millions of records and have millions of fans), and Grammy nominations are considered notable. Kindly requesting his page be restored please. Neither administrators that supported the deletion or nominated the deletion provided any Wikipedia reference of what determines notability for this site, but did say the article wasn’t being deleted for being unverified. If the article is verifiable with sources, I do not see a justified cause for deletion. Thank you for your time and favorable consideration. Livinmydestiny (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music). Mr. Bullock has several of criteria listed and it was cited on his page. I posted Billboard links to his national and international charts when I originally sourced them. There are several artists mentioned that are major recording artists and have sold gold as well as multi-platinum records. They also have Wiki pages. Not sure how that was overlooked? There were users that deleted some of the sources, may be that’s how. It’s very clear that he meets notability standards. Most producers do not have in depth articles written, they are behind the scenes but they do have credits, which I cited. I will submit a deletion review. Thank you! Livinmydestiny (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Citation help?

I have an article sent to draft space. Can you help me add “reliable” citations? E Super Maker (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

No UK before 1801

Be aware that the UK only came into existence in 1801, so your recent creation of eg Category:1740s establishments in the United Kingdom was unnecessary, the appropriate categories already existed as Category:1740s establishments in Great Britain (and just in general the fact that you were trying to put an article in non-existent categories for such a relatively recent period in a well-wiki'd country like GB/UK should have been a good flag that something was wrong...) Le Deluge (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

TOPCAT (software)

Requested refund at WP:REFUND of TOPCAT (software) to userspace as seen you were busy and intermittent on Wikipedia as additional sources have come to light and I wish to consider article development. However Muboshgu at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#TOPCAT (software) has refused this userifcation on basis of uncontroversial delete ... I guess not soft deleted. Thankyou. In the even you do not respond in 24 hours I may take to WP:DRV ... nothing to do with you but fits better with my RL that I don't wish to leave it any longer. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

  • DRV is probably best, the editors there are well-qualified to gauge whether any new sources are sufficient to restore the article. When you post this at DRV, I'd appreciate a ping. --Randykitty (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for TOPCAT (software)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of TOPCAT (software). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ( Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 2 ) Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Seven years of editing

Hey, Randykitty. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Sections?

How do you add page sections to an article? By page sections, I don’t mean with equals signs to change text size. I mean the drop-down box this talk post is in.

Your regards, E Super Maker (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  • You do that by putting the section header between double equals signs, like this:

==section title==

For more info, see Help:Editing. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Tons of thanks!

I am giving you a WikiCookie for always helping me. Have some cookies!

:D, E Super Maker (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Did you take the time to look down here?

Request for help

I hope you do not mind me turning to you for help. If I should ask someone else instead, can you suggest someone to ask?

I got this message from a bot:

diffhist mb User:Rick Norwood/Duotrope‎23:39 +129‎ ‎SporkBot talk contribs‎ Translate and/or remove deprecated parameters per Template talk:Infobox website

I know what "deprecated" means and I know what "parameters" means, but cannot parse "deprecated parameters" in this context. Sporkbot seems to be a largely unused bot (its page says "semi-retired), which is why I do not ask this question on its talk page. It seems to have deleted the page Duotrope, or it may be that the page was deleted earlier and the deletion escaped my notice at the time.

Thanks for any help you can give. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Mmmm... Pickles!

The title was all fun and games, but I am in quite a pickle. With my incomplete bot, User:4o4NotFound Bot, I can’t really test it because an admin has blocked it, and I am really confused on what to do now. It is on the talk page, and on wiki page mode.

Please help, E Super Maker (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Userboxes

I have made my own WikiFauna, the elusive WikiBee. Just wanted to let you know, you are probably able to use the Queen WikiBee userbox, {{User:E Super Maker/Queen WikiBee}}. Here it is! User:E Super Maker/Queen WikiBee E Super Maker (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Neuropsychopharmacology Wikipedia Page

Hi RandyKitty, My edits to the Neuropsychopharmacology (journal) page were just deleted, citing "revert addition of promotional and trivial stuff, please see WP:JWG about what is appropriate in this kind of articles." Could you please help me understand what content was trivial or promotional? Based on the WP:JWG which I tried to adhere to strictly I don't understand which content was inappropriate. Chloejordan88 (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Thank you.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloejordan88 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Adding lots of stuff that is not supported by independent reliable sources (like the whole "overview" and "focus" sections) is promotional. Info about when page numbers are added to an article is utterly trivial. These are just examples, of course. --Randykitty (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

CheckUser

How do you sign up to become a CheckUser?

E Super Maker (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A long history of productive contributions and good judgment. However, at this point, see WP:HATSHOP, in particular the part which starts with "If you are applying for rights...". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it too early for me to sign up to be admin?

I know that I am a (recently) new user, but would I be able to run for admin? Also, I am a good PHP coder, so would becoming a bot operator help my chances?

Intense Happiness, E Super Maker (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You've been here for ~3 weeks. Becoming and admin is a fairly brutal process, it's not impossible to be one, but I can't recall the last person that became an admin without years of experience. As for bots, any editor in good standing can become a bot operator, provided they have a well-defined bot task and follow policy (see WP:BOTPOL, and in particular WP:BOTREQUIRE and WP:BOTAPPROVAL) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What Headbomb said. In addition, you'd need a ton of (good) edits. At a minimum 10,000. We need more good admins, but editors can also be very valuable without being an admin (Headbomb is an excellent example, doing invaluable work, without having the admin flag), so start editing and producing good content and in time somebody will come around and nominate you. --Randykitty (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

😊 Thanks! E Super Maker (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
You are one of the best Wikipedia admins out there. You deserve this. E Super Maker (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Adoption Program?

Hi, I just wanted to ask if you are accepting user adoptions. The adoption page was really annoying, so I could not check.

E Super Maker (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Explanation of the deletion

Hi, I removed the journal "Ethnology" that was published by the Uni Pittsburg from the list because the journal stopped being published in 2012: http://www.pitt.edu/~ethnolog/

I would like to add two journals that have high impact factors and that are missing from the list -Ethnos: Journal of Anthropology, and Anthropological Theory. Please let me know how I can do this without being deleted again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.38.74 (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposals?

I am working on a Wikipedia proposal, Wikipedia:Mobile Rewrite Proposal. Some assistance please? E Super Maker (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Your proposal is vague in scope and unclear about both what it wants to achieve, or how to achieve it. My advice is to focus on writing and improving articles. This is what Wikipedia needs. Not Super Maker this weird focus on the management side of things. Get experience building the encyclopedia first. That said, if you have specific proposals and ideas, feel free to make them at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

(Randykitty, this is for Headbomb, not you) Actually, I am quite interested in “this weird focus in the management of things”. Something else I’ve noticed, you respond on this talk page, but not your own.

E Super Maker (😲 shout) 21:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't respond to what you've posted on my page because either
a) it's not a conversation I'm particularly interested in having, e.g. User talk:Headbomb#Wha-
b) it's a fork of existing conversations, e.g. User talk:Headbomb#Re: Proposals? and this conversation, User talk:Headbomb#Re: Editting articles while unapproved and User talk:E Super Maker#Editting articles while unnapproved
c) it's things that have already been taken care of, e.g. User talk:Headbomb#Re: Editting articles while unapproved

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Radio Woking

Hi, I wonder if you could look at the Radio Woking article which was deleted and you kindly created as a draft to be updated Draft:Radio_Woking. It has been further updated with more relevance for it's inclusion on wiki so I hope you will be able to approve now. Tod55

  • I'm not overly impressed, but perhaps it might squeak by now, so I will refrain from accepting/rejecting it right now, perhaps better to have another pair of eyes have a look at it. --Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Do I need to do anything to instigate this? Or will someone else just take a look? Tod55

Speedy deletion

Regarding Neon Zombie: You have make deleted my wikipedia article. I put a lot of work into it. How can I retrieve it or work on it to improve it? it's gone. It was a so called speedy deletion for whatever reason. Several other Wikipedia admins were fine with it. I talked to them several weeks ago and followed their tips to improve it. The only problem seemed to be the sources. Since I have put much work in it I would at least like to get the article back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmjunkie137 (talk • contribs)

  • Hi, I'm sorry that you feel discouraged, article creation is one of the harder things to do here and we have very stringent policies against promotional articles. In any case, I did not delete the article. I tagged it for deletion as being too promotional (see [[[WP:CSD#G11]]) and another admin then checked and apparently agreed with me and then deleted the article. As you were told at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, that admin is the person that you need to contact about possible restoration. --Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for guidance

Dear Mr. Randykitty or Dr. Jeffrey Beall (am not sure what you prefer),

By way of introduction, my name is Bill Darley. I am an editor for the official U.S. Army publication Military Review. I recently attempted to post a new article to Wikipedia titled, "Military Review, The Professional Journal of the U.S. Army." However, was quickly informed that the article did not meet the standards of Wikipedia for at least two reasons: first, there appeared to be a conflict of interest on part, I suppose since I am employed by the U.S. Army; and second, that the article was not encyclopedic but was rather blatant advertising.

With regard to the first issue, on attempting to follow the instructions for submitting an article, I was required to check on block somewhere in the process stating that I was close to the publication. The choices given were somewhat ambiguous for me since I was not tasked or being specifically paid to submit the article, but was clearly associated with article in a professional sense. Our publication does not sell anything and is open to anyone with computer access at no cost. Producing this article was actually an initiative on my part in an attempt to help research scholars interested in military history and security subjects in general become aware of information in our archives as well as what we are currently collecting in the form of articles that might be useful to their research. (The online archive of Military Review extends back to 1922 so there is a fair amount of information that might be useful to persons studying the evolution of U.S. Army topics of interest over about a hundred year period.) I have looked for a way on line to make my specific relationship to the publication clear. However, the instructions are very confusing and hard to follow. Any clarity provided in this area would be helpful.

Secondly, with regard to the article being blatant advertising, I ask for your advice with regard to which material should be removed to render it at the level of neutrality acceptable to Wikipedia, and, perhaps, what other material you suggest ought to be added such as, for example, a list of former directors, notable contributors, or other you would stipulate to make it more encyclopedic. As a sidebar, I note that there are literally hundreds of pages organized in an almost identical way to the one I submitted, most of which, as far as I can tell are written in a considerably more parochial style so it is somewhat confusing how the line between advertising and neutral information is drawn as a matter of Wwikipedia policy. As for example, the Indian Military Review, which appears to be primarily promotional. Consequently, I would appreciate a little more clarity with regard to the clarity of the line that is drawn between what is encyclopedic and what should be excluded as promotional since the vast majority of material related to organizations already on Wikipedia appears to be, at least in some sense, promotional.

I thank you for your time and look forward to any specific guidance you can provide.

S, William.darley (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Bill Darley

  • That's a lot of issues...
1/ My username is Randykitty. As a matter of principle, I usually don't confirm or deny any details about myself, including my real-life identity. I don't know why you think I may be Beall (thanks for the compliment anyway), but I am not him.
2/ COI: it's not because you are employed by the US Army, but the fact that you are the editor of the journal for which you were trying to create an article. COI is not a reason for deleting an article or draft, but promotionalism is (see WP:CSD#G11).
3/ Whether or not there are any financial interests is immaterial. Some people are here to promote their local football club or something like that. The problem often is that it is very difficult to write in a neutral way about a subject that you are closely connected to. To make your relationship clear, use the {{connected contributor}} template on the talk page of the article and put the {{UserboxCOI}} template on your user page (click the links for instruction on how to use these templates).
4/ Promotional stuff in other articles: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
5/ Detailed tips on how to write a neutral and acceptable article on an academic journal, see our journal article writing guide.
Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Randykitty, and thank you for your warm welcome on Wikipedia! I hope that my contribuition can be useful to Wikipedia community, and for users too of course! I have a question for you: I have created the english version of an exisisting Italian page, about La Cucina Italiana, an Italian food magazine now active in USA too. It's in draft mode for weeks and I don't know why: is there something that I missed in my EN page? Thank you in advance for your feedback! Loris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doloriangray (talk • contribs)

  • Hi, the reason nothing has been happening is that you didn't submit it for review... I just did that on your behalf. Be patient, this sometimes takes a few months... --Randykitty (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

getting my article reviewed and published

Dear Randykitty,

I am probably quite stupid, but I cannot get my first English article reviewed. The tutorial says I have to go to contributions and then click on submit for review (or something like that). But cannot find that button.

Can you help me out, without spending hours of explaining?

Interesting how Wikipedia developed a whole new language. It feels like my first days on internet in 1994, when we had to do everything in Unix.

Best,

Kaylie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaylie2011 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Don't worry, that's not stupid. WP can be quite baffling when you start. I assume you are talking about Draft:Kay Mastenbroek. I've placed a tamplate, which declares this a draft and when you're ready, you can submit it by following that template's instructions. Help:Your first article gives some useful pointers, but you should also read WP:GNG, WP:N, and WP:ANYBIO. As it stands, your draft is still very far from ready. I see that your draft is a translation of the Dutch article on the same person, but you should realize that the English WP is much more severe than the Dutch one. I see that the article has been around there since 2011, with as sole reference a link to IMDb. That is completely unacceptable here. First of all, IMDb is not a reliable source as its content is user-generated. Second, there are no inline citations. Every statement, especially in a biography of a living person (see WP:BLP), needs to be supported by a reliable source (RS). Sources related to the subject can be used to source uncontroversial info (such as birth place/year), but none of that contributes to notability. For that you need RS that are independent of the subject. I'm sorry if this all is a bit bewildering, article creation (and especially creating bios) is one of the hardest things here. My general advice therefore would be to first edit existing articles in your field of expertise and only once you get a feel of how things work here get back to that draft. A final advice: your username suggests that you may have a connection with the subject. That's is not forbidden, but please read WP:COI and WP:PAID in case those policies are applicable. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

neutrality on scientific journals

hi Randykitty, I tried to understand what are your doubts about some of my content on the scientific journal Il capitale culturale, in Draft, but I still have some doubts that I would like share with you: - yes, I am part of the crew of this journal, that has no commercial purpose and is worth to be known, in my opinion, because of its challenging interdisciplinary mission (in Europe, for sure) - there is no discussion about scientific journals, except their policies, rankings and authoritativeness, so there are no external sources to be quoted. I may cite a lot of other journals articles on Wikipedia that were not cancelled - I did cut some of the "not neutral" info, taken by the Journal's website, but the result is that in the article something about the peculiar mission of this cultural project is lost I wait to re-submit the article, please send me your opinion! I am not actually a newbie in WP but have to learn a lot! Thank you, P feliciati (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi, it is a common misconception that COI editing only concerns cases where there is a pecuniary interest. But many people want to promote something even if they have no monetary interest and, in fact, you seem to be one of them. Just see your own comments above: "is worth to be known, in my opinion, because of its challenging interdisciplinary mission". WP does not care about "worthiness", but only about "notability" in the sense that something must have been noted in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Il capitale culturale fulfils that requirement, as it meets our inclusion criteria for academic journals (because it is included in Scopus). Have a look at WP:JWG, it contains a step-by-step description on how to create a neutral article about a journal (including pre-formatted references, see also my user page). As for the existence of other articles that may or may not meet the above requirements, WP has almost 6 million articles and many are not yet up to par. Eventually somebody will clean them up, there's no WP:DEADLINE. But it's not an argument to create new articles that are equally deficient (we call that argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or, less reverently, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:JRES will also contain a lot of journal-related resources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Randy

Thank you for the message on my talk page! Sorry for not explaining the removal. I removed this because the text is libelous and harmful. According to Wikipedia guidelines. It has been one of the random attacks of this vandal, Vincent van Ommen, alias HM Wilburt, Lucas B and Manchesterchampions, which are all the same person. He went on with several new profiles since then. He first attacks IMDB and subsequently attacks Dutch actor profiles. Dutch actors are constantly restoring on IMDB what he removes. IMDB is aware of this. The discussion is an act of stalking, the 3 profiles in the discussion are sockpuppets, so libelous and harmful, and lines as "fake person" and "crazy" do not have a place on Wikipedia. This is a much bigger case and has no place on the talk page of an individual actor. Thank you!CharlenePho (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi, here are some answers/tips concerning the points that you raise: 1/ What happens on IMDb is of no import here. Please also note that IMDb cannot be used as a source on WP, because its content is user generated (see WP:RS). 2/ If you have evidence that the editors you mention are sockpuppets, please open a sockpuppet investigation (see WP:SPI). Until sockpuppetry is proven you should not remove talk page contributions. 3/ If there are WP:BLP issues on the talk page, ask for assistance at WP:BLPN). Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Randy, I believe there are already many people involved, and investigations have been taking place. User and his sockpuppets might already be blocked for a while. It's mainly about the libelous and harmful language now, which I believe we should not keep there, as it it libelous and harmful and I'm surprised it hasn't been removed earlier. This is no place for that. Unfounded accusations, swearing, stupid, fake, crazy are not descriptions that should be there to stay. Especially not on an actor's article discussion page. Also, even though the credit has been in the newspapers and confirmed by the studio, the credit is not even there. So it's about nothing but name calling and stalking. There is a whole history going on about this user and his sockpuppets, which you can read on other pages and the deletion discussion of Vincent van Ommen and many more. But this is purely about the libelous and harmful language still left. I will track the history of all accounts to see if there is more of this language on Wikipedia discussion pages.CharlenePho (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Evidence means that you provide links to diffs, so that other people can see what you are talking about. I have skimmed the remarks on Talk:Sander Jan Klerk and don't see any pressing need to remove anything, even if the discussion is less than polite and without much collaborative spirit. If you want to pursue this, go to WP:BLPN. --Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! My intention is not to start a discussion about a user's behaviour or about a disagreement. It is just to have the swearing and completely unfounded libelous and harmful nonsense removed that I noticed was still there. Especially the 2 contributions of Manchesterchampions, which are utter swearing and incoherent lies, libelous and harmful, with no purpose except bringing someone down. I see you even jumped into this before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Manchesterchampions where you give the user a reprimande about his damaging attack and language, but you only forgot to remove the actual attack/language I see. Maybe the rest (his other 2 sockpuppets comments) can stay there but this kind of libelous and harmful language should surely not stay there? It has no purpose apart from random swearing and the attack has nothing at all to do with the actual topic, it's not even about the topicCharlenePho (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  • There's a world of difference between admonishing an editor about their conduct/language, and censuring their comments. The latter we do only in exceptional cases (libel would be one of them, but I don't see that). So, one last time: you cannot simply remove other users' comments from a talk page. If there's a problem, then present your evidence at WP:BLPN. If it's not serious enough to raise there, then let it rest... --Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your time and advice, I appreciate it. The site you refer me to has nothing to with libelous language of an attacker though, that site is about content of actual articles. I still think that "Crazy person", "Fake person", "Fake actor", are rude and libelous and because everywhere on Wikipedia it says that such material should be removed, I thought that was true. I appreciate your opinion and help too, so I think I just have to leave it at this then. It's sometimes difficult to adjust to the double standards on Wikipedia and not very inviting to become an editor, especially not with such language tolerated. Have a good evening CharlenePho (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Organisations / Journals

Concerning things like this, I'd say Journals would be in addition to, not instead of Organisations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty/Archive_26&oldid=932343411"