User talk:UnitedStatesian/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:UnitedStatesian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
IB
Hey thanks for your edits to Interactive Brokers. I appreciate all of it, however can you put the 2007 category second (so the cats stay alphabetical), and can you remove the NY Times external link? I commented it out because the NYT link used to have a whole topic of articles related to IB, but the contents vanished, so I commented it out for the time. But after a year or more, nothing's changed, so just remove it please. Thanks. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Done! Unfortunately HotCat can't control the order of the categories. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Understood, I use HotCat a lot too and have that problem. Thanks for fixing those things, however I saw you changed LLC to Group, Inc. I wrote the article about the much more notable entity, the LLC, and after a significant amount of deliberation after all the research, and contemplation with Wikipedians and others, it really makes sense to keep this article pretty much entirely about the LLC. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is that the LLC is not the public company, so the ticker symbol IBKR is not the one for the LLC, the financial information is not that of the LLC, and the LLC is not the company that had the IPO. I think it is important to be consistent with how we treat other public companies. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- And now you understand a part of the conflict here. Sure now the infobox data better correlates with the exact legal entity, but now almost all of the lede, much of the history, operations, and more is off. That's why when I first devised this project, I actually created and had two articles published, one for the LLC and one for IBG. Yet one was too short, prompting an AfD, and the other received less traffic; nobody searches or is interested in IBG. And the two entities are so intertwined it's near-impossible to really separate out accurately, and in fact there are actually way more then two entities to this (jump to the bottom of the page). So even as you edited it, unfortunately it's not accurate. And I'm not even the best-versed in all this, but I had the company take a look at what I wrote; they had a few minor tweaks, and thus it was accurate to the companies as best as it could be. And the companies aren't really separate. Legally, yes, but operationally, no; it's all pretty much seen as one company, with different entities filed with the US government to be able to work with strange and complex national and international regulations. We're going to be dealing with technicalities either way, but trust me, naming as the LLC is the better way. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- This is not a new problem: think of how many subsidiaries JPMorgan Chase or any other complex company has. But I can't think of any example where the public company article (the one with the ticker symbol, financials, etc.,) is not written from the initial perspective of that public company (with major subs discussed later on). I understand there may be some additional rewrites needed (beyond what I have started), but I think consistency argues strongly for the public entity approach. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- And now you understand a part of the conflict here. Sure now the infobox data better correlates with the exact legal entity, but now almost all of the lede, much of the history, operations, and more is off. That's why when I first devised this project, I actually created and had two articles published, one for the LLC and one for IBG. Yet one was too short, prompting an AfD, and the other received less traffic; nobody searches or is interested in IBG. And the two entities are so intertwined it's near-impossible to really separate out accurately, and in fact there are actually way more then two entities to this (jump to the bottom of the page). So even as you edited it, unfortunately it's not accurate. And I'm not even the best-versed in all this, but I had the company take a look at what I wrote; they had a few minor tweaks, and thus it was accurate to the companies as best as it could be. And the companies aren't really separate. Legally, yes, but operationally, no; it's all pretty much seen as one company, with different entities filed with the US government to be able to work with strange and complex national and international regulations. We're going to be dealing with technicalities either way, but trust me, naming as the LLC is the better way. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is that the LLC is not the public company, so the ticker symbol IBKR is not the one for the LLC, the financial information is not that of the LLC, and the LLC is not the company that had the IPO. I think it is important to be consistent with how we treat other public companies. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Understood, I use HotCat a lot too and have that problem. Thanks for fixing those things, however I saw you changed LLC to Group, Inc. I wrote the article about the much more notable entity, the LLC, and after a significant amount of deliberation after all the research, and contemplation with Wikipedians and others, it really makes sense to keep this article pretty much entirely about the LLC. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm actually curious, is there a policy or guideline related to what you're insisting? I checked out Wikipedia:Consistency, which only has guidelines on smaller issues, with a failed proposal on general consistency. Although I normally advocate for articles in a topic to be consistent; there are always irregularities that require different handling. I notice JP Morgan is big enough that it can handle an article about the holding company and notable subsidiaries, though for many large companies, that wouldn't be the case. I looked at Goldman Sachs, which follows your standard, though I read the first line, and just like the IB article right now, the first line is wrong. GS "Group Inc. is a bank holding company and a financial holding company", not a "finance company...in banking", etc., just like IBG is not a brokerage firm. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 14:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
No, there is not a policy or guideline. Like much (most?) of Wikipedia, practices are built up over thousands of articles (including both the ones you looked at), which makes it unnecessary to codify them. And I don't "insist" on anything: I have a pretty good idea how a US public company article should look (i.e., what brings it closer to being a featured article), but I don't get into edit wars. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've been a Wikipedian for basically as long as you have, so I know that many/most controversial issues are resolved through referring to policies or guidelines, or otherwise through consensus (a passive consensus would be referring to other articles as precedents). And I'm not looking to make this a Featured Article; I'm looking to have it make the most sense, and it really doesn't right now how you have it. I don't intend to personally attack you; I'm just trying to work through this issue. As long as a policy or guideline doesn't indicate, then editors can pretty much do whatever they wish and I don't have to agree with your changes unless we both make it an issue enough. Perhaps a third party should look at this issue? What did you think about Goldman Sachs? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Definitely a 3rd party would make sense if you want to solicit. All I know about the Goldman Sachs article is that the name in the info box, and the name in bold at the start of the first sentence, both match exactly the legal name of the company with the trading symbol NYSE: GS, and as such follows WP:NCCORP (and I don't see what else there is to do there). And that is all I wanted to do in Interactive Brokers: match, in the first sentence and the infobox, the company that trades under the symbol Nasdaq: IBKR. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Huh? This is something you pretty much put in two years ago, possibly without discussion or consensus, and which the Administrator "czar" removed last month, only for you to add it back in today? Sounds sketchy, and anyway, I don't follow rules made by someone I'm having an issue with the exact same day they create rules. That's clearly gaming the system. Though I did see the talk page comments, and you're evidently nonetheless trying to do the right thing. Clearly this issue needs to be worked out with @Czar: and others before you start to enforce it in articles. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed that's the proper process, so I've reverted my latest edits to Interactive Brokers, putting it back to the LLC version you authored, pending completion of discussion at WP:NCCORP. Apologies that I was relying on my memory of a guideline that had been in place for 11 years (and note: was not put in by me) and that I missed a change to the guideline made unilaterally only two months ago. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- No worries. Thanks for the fair view over this. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, apparently in 2006, someone added that the legal name of a company should be used in the first sentence, and it stuck about 11 years. Yet "Interactive Brokers LLC" is a legal/full/official name. I don't think this NCCORP has ever distinguished that it needs to be the largest entity/holding company and not the most notable entity. Thus I don't think it even applies here? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed that's the proper process, so I've reverted my latest edits to Interactive Brokers, putting it back to the LLC version you authored, pending completion of discussion at WP:NCCORP. Apologies that I was relying on my memory of a guideline that had been in place for 11 years (and note: was not put in by me) and that I missed a change to the guideline made unilaterally only two months ago. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Huh? This is something you pretty much put in two years ago, possibly without discussion or consensus, and which the Administrator "czar" removed last month, only for you to add it back in today? Sounds sketchy, and anyway, I don't follow rules made by someone I'm having an issue with the exact same day they create rules. That's clearly gaming the system. Though I did see the talk page comments, and you're evidently nonetheless trying to do the right thing. Clearly this issue needs to be worked out with @Czar: and others before you start to enforce it in articles. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Definitely a 3rd party would make sense if you want to solicit. All I know about the Goldman Sachs article is that the name in the info box, and the name in bold at the start of the first sentence, both match exactly the legal name of the company with the trading symbol NYSE: GS, and as such follows WP:NCCORP (and I don't see what else there is to do there). And that is all I wanted to do in Interactive Brokers: match, in the first sentence and the infobox, the company that trades under the symbol Nasdaq: IBKR. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've been a Wikipedian for basically as long as you have, so I know that many/most controversial issues are resolved through referring to policies or guidelines, or otherwise through consensus (a passive consensus would be referring to other articles as precedents). And I'm not looking to make this a Featured Article; I'm looking to have it make the most sense, and it really doesn't right now how you have it. I don't intend to personally attack you; I'm just trying to work through this issue. As long as a policy or guideline doesn't indicate, then editors can pretty much do whatever they wish and I don't have to agree with your changes unless we both make it an issue enough. Perhaps a third party should look at this issue? What did you think about Goldman Sachs? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
But then the infobox needs to change, since Interactive Brokers LLC is not a public company, is not traded under Nasdaq: IBKR, and does not have the financial results listed. (categories and navbox would need to change as well). I have no opinion on which company should be the subject of the article, only that the article should be internally consistent the subject of a single company, either LLC or Interactive Brokers Group Inc.: that is all I was trying, in good faith, to do with my edits (and I think is important to avoid confusing the reader). UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Though how you had it, about 90% of the article would be incorrect. So... Again, these are small technicalities; they're essentially the same company. So in my opinion, how I had it is, for all intents and purposes, correct. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Let's just agree to disagree on the "about 90%" number for the Inc. version, but now that it is staying as LLC do you mind my taking a shot at correcting the "small technicalities" in the infobox and categories? UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, and maybe let's create a draft to try that out? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 23:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Let's just agree to disagree on the "about 90%" number for the Inc. version, but now that it is staying as LLC do you mind my taking a shot at correcting the "small technicalities" in the infobox and categories? UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I think this 'was notable, so I removed the tag. Please bring it to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: TechnipFMC has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Notable Velamas listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Notable Velamas. Since you had some involvement with the Notable Velamas redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Your request for new page reviewer user right has been granted. Happy patrolling! Alex ShihTalk 16:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Missed you request
Sorry about not responding, but somehow your ping was lost in a flood of comments I received on Commons just about at that time. I realize it is no excuse, but next time feel free to just ping again before making a request elsewhere. I would prefer if you withdrew it and instead explained why/if there was any missing functionality. All functionality was copied, so the merge is essentially for maintenance purposes. No articles should have seen any changes whatsoever as a result of the merge. The new template allows functionality of both older templates, and as such is broader. Carl Fredrik talk 10:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Nival_(company)#Nival got hacked last year. Encyclopedic to include?. Pavel Novikov (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Global Payments (July 22)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Global Payments and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello! UnitedStatesian,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Chris Troutman (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
|
Category:Virtual assistant applications
Hi, please note that I have nominated Category:Virtual assistant applications for deletion, as it is almost empty after deletion of its Google subcategory, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_8#Category:Amazon_Alexa_skills. – Fayenatic London 07:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london:, thanks so much, I agree with that nom. and added my !vote. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Lenovo
I reverted your edit to Lenovo. I realize it was a good-faith edit, but I think you need to go to talk page before making such drastic changes. Lenovo is undoubtedly a Chinese-controlled company, but the IBM heritage is still significant. Matt's talk 21:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- P.S. In particular removing the Pink Sheets reference struck me as odd. I just can't construe that as anything other than basic factual info about a corporation. Matt's talk 22:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Hey @M.R.Forrester:, I understand the restoration of the US-specific cats. given the IBM heritage (though don't agree with it). However, as the template's documentation makes very clear, longstanding WP practice is NOT to clutter {{infobox company}} with all the possible non-home country locations where a company's stock may trade: note that Lenovo also trades in Frankfurt, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, and several other locations beyond the US Pink Sheets. WP is not a stock trading directory.
BATS Exchange template
Hey @UnitedStatesian:, do you know anything about possibly creating a new stock exchange template? I am beginning to see some tickers that trade on the BATS exchange no longer resolve when using the NYSE template. An example would be IYT. iShares just recently transferred 30 iShares funds to the Bats ETF Marketplace. I guess we need a template to point to a web address like https://www.nyse.com/quote/BATS:IYT for BATS listed securities. Let me know if you have any thoughts. Ksu6500 (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Ksu6500: Certainly a new template makes sense, but I would have it link to the BATS website, where the link follows the http://www.bats.com/us/equities/etfmarketplace/listed_products/symbols/IYT convention. Let me know if you need help building the new template. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject Investment
Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.
The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.
Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.
 I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! |
Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Technology update:
- Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
General project update:
- The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
- Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
- To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
- Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
Technology update:
- The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225
General project update:
- On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
- Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
- To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
- We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
Technology update:
- Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
General project update:
- The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
- To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, UnitedStatesian. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
- Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
Outreach and Invitations:
- If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with:
{{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.
New Year New Page Review Drive
- A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
- Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.
General project update:
- ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
- The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
- To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
New Years new page backlog drive
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
- The total number of reviews completed for the month.
- The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Help with article?
Hi there,
I noticed you're a member of the Wikipedia Finance and Investment project. I've written a new article and I wonder if you'd be willing to help out by reviewing it - Draft: Fifth Wall Ventures and making it live if you think it's ready? It's about a VC-firm focused on real estate.
Although I am an experienced Wikipedia editor and always try my best to abide by the five pillars, in this case I have a conflict of interest, so Wikipedia policy requires that all my work be reviewed by an independent editor before it's published. (Moved from "Draft" to "Wikipedia" under the "More" tab in the nav.) I'd be glad to do any additional work you think the article requires.
Thanks for considering this!
Ed
BC1278 (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)BC1278
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
- We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
New Year Backlog Drive results:
- We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!
General project update:
- ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
- Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of S&P 500 companies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Grid (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) 09:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
New Page Review Newsletter No.10
ACTRIAL:
- ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.
Paid editing
- Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
- The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?
Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
- While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.
News
- The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Broadridge Financial Solutions
Hi there, I have just posted a request on the talk page for the article Broadridge Financial Solutions and, given your involvement with Wikiproject Finance & Investment, I wondered if you'd be willing to consider reviewing it. I have a financial COI as I'm working with the company, and therefore will not directly edit the page, per the WP:COI guideline. The current Broadridge article is quite short, and needs a lot of work; I think the section proposed would go a long way to helping readers understand this company better. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Korey Cooper
There's no need for a discussion about adding redirects. The subject clearly fails WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. Notability is lacking and if we have a discussion about it, it will likely be deleted rather than simply ending up as a redirect. Feel free to start a discussion about the subject's notability or support that she is somehow independently notable. You can do so on the talk page of the band article, or at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. Your best hope is to find references and provide them in whatever discussion you start. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Piksel article
Hi! Just wanted to let you know there is a discussion over at the Piksel talk page which would be greatly enhanced if you could offer your input. Any help you can provide on this matter would be most appreciated. Thank you in advance for your time! SPINTENDO 17:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Custom House infobox
Hi, I noticed you blanked the URL in the "homepage" parameter of the company infobox in Custom House (global payments). Just wondering what the reasoning was, or if it was a mistake? Fyi, I added the URL to the Wikidata entry, and removed the empty "homepage" parameter because it was blocking display of the Wikidata info. --IamNotU (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
ACTRIAL:
- WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 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.
Deletion tags
- Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.
Backlog drive:
- A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
Editathons
- There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
Paid editing - new policy
- Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
- The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
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, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
News
- Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
- The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Westar Energy
I opposed and reverted the last move, and I'm doing the same here. Westar merged with KCP&L, so that article should be moved too. Or the two should be merged into Evergy. Maybe just create a new article? Corky 20:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello UnitedStatesian, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
- As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
- Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar:
. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 
, 
, 
, 
. - Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
|
Hello UnitedStatesian, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
- June backlog drive
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
- New technology, new rules
- New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
- Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
- Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
- Editathons
- Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
- The Signpost
- The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
7201 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 7201. Since you had some involvement with the 7201 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. » Shadowowl | talk 16:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
What is Canadian
Please discuss.
Broadcom page moves and broken links
Hi, UnitedStatesian, and greetings.
I appreciate that your move of Broadcom Limited to Broadcom Inc. and your move of Broadcom to Broadcom Corporation were well-intentioned. I do not currently have an opinion about those moves, except to say that they were not unreasonable.
I also appreciate that your subsequent edit of Broadcom to point to Broadcom Inc. instead of to Broadcom Corporation was probably well-intentioned. However, this, I feel, was not so reasonable - at least, not without a corresponding effort to fix any inbound links that were broken as a result. I have therefore reverted that edit. If you wish to restore it, please be sure to amend any inbound links accordingly. Thank you.
I am not posting this to admonish you, just to explain why I reverted that edit. Also, apologies for the hasty tone; I am editing under some time pressure but want to get the inbound links fixed before I break off. Thanks for understanding, Zazpot (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Zazpot:. I made Broadcom a dab, which I think is a better solution. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- I am fine with it being a dab, but I have reverted your change (again, sorry), because it again broke inbound anchor links. Please can you be sure to take any inbound links in hand before doing this again? Thanks. Zazpot (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Zazpot:, can you please specify the anchor links about which you are concerned? I have taken the inbound links into consideration, but there are still nearly 500, and I think you are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good in opposing an edit that is helpful to editors and more accurate. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- @UnitedStatesian:, I know that you addressed one of them, here; thank you for that. As for the rest, I think they merit similar treatment, and should be reviewed and in (nearly?) all cases, updated, one-by-one. The authors of those links expected them to point to a particular article, and I really don't think that an edit that silently points them to the wrong article can fairly be described as "helpful to editors and more accurate": in the long run, it will be much more work to fix those links, as their creation will be buried deeper in the page histories, etc. Perhaps there is a tool somewhere that will assist you in reviewing the inbound links; I don't know. I'm sorry I can't be more help. I hope you see why I am asking for care rather than haste here, and can see that I am being a pragmatist rather than a perfectionist. Zazpot (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello UnitedStatesian, 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
- The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
- 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.
- There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.
- Other
- A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.
- 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
|
|---|
|
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)
Please don't edit these pages without asking; we often have the current meetup located at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC.--Pharos (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018
|
Hello UnitedStatesian, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
- Backlog
As of 21 October 2018[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
- Community Wishlist Proposal
- There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
- Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this 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
- User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Sterling Ban listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sterling Ban. Since you had some involvement with the Sterling Ban redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MB 02:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hay Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compensation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. |
Hello UnitedStatesian,
- 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)
Speedy deletion declined: List fo current champions in NXT
Hello UnitedStatesian. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of List fo current champions in NXT, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: R3 only applies to recently created and implausible redirects. Use WP:RFD if you want deletion. Thank you. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Same goes for List fo current United States lieutenant governors and List fo governors of Arkansas. WP:CSD#R3 is for recent redirects, but since these have all been around for a few years WP:RfD is the place to go. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Amorymeltzer:, I have RFD'd all three. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, UnitedStatesian. 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)
Xolani Sotashe
I see you removed the speedy on Xolani Sotashe. Take a look at the move logs & edit histories of Xolani Sotashe & Draft:Xolani Sotashe, and a look at the conversation on my talk page - User talk:Cabayi#Speedy deletion of Xolani Sotashe. Which version has been worked on? Which should be kept? I think you've got it wrong. Cabayi (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Cabayi:: thanks for the question; looking at the article I think you have done the right think to nominate it for speedy deletion, but the reason was not correct. I corrected the reason, and once the article is deleted if you have any trouble moving Draft into the article space let me know and I can help with that. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Two days ago, in the same circumstances I put a G6 on American Medical Group Association, and as you can see, it was deleted A10 to Draft:American Medical Group Association. Perhaps you want to argue the toss with the deleting admin? I really couldn't care what tag it's deleted under so long as it goes. Cabayi (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Page mover granted
Hello, UnitedStatesian. 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, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).
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:
- Wikipedia:Requested moves
- Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
CSD C1
Hello, UnitedStatesian,
I just wanted to let you know, if you didn't, that CSD C1, for empty categories, is treated differently from other rationales for speedy deletion. Categories that are tagged sit for 7 days in a holdover category. In that time, they can fill up again and the tag is removed or an editor can decide to place an {{emptycat}} tag on the category that says that the category shouldn't be deleted even if it is empty. But categories with a CSD C1 tag are not immediately deleted when they are tagged.
My apologies if you were already familiar with this policy but you removed a tag from a category so I thought I'd post a short explanation. Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Bad Boys for Life (November 24)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bad Boys for Life and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bad Boys for Life, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Hi UnitedStatesian, you stated that IMDB exists, and removed the BLP Prod. IMDB is non RS as you know, whether it exists, or doesn't exist is irrelevant. What is known about IMDB is that it non RS. It cant be used for a reference, except in linking to specific content. So it is not valid, whether it is there or not. It is null concept. So it cant be used as an argument for supplying a reference. The second source to the website, doesn't mention the fact that he has written 50 books. I had a good look through, could see it. So have two references, once doesn't exist, as it is a null reference, the other one doesnt provides the goods, except to prove he exists. So neither can be used for BLP. They are both dud. Hopefully you will not removed the blpprod and then I will have to send it to Afd, stating the exact same arguments again. scope_creep (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hey @Scope creep:, I believe this RfC confirms my understanding that if the article has an imdb link, it is NOT eligible for WP:BLPPROD and a different process (such as "regular" WP:PROD) needs to be used. (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @UnitedStatesian: Is that the rule, I vaguely remember reading about it years ago. I don't think it takes cognizance of the fact whether the actual text itself constitutes a valid acceptable sentence in terms of content. The current test is defined as valid, if it has external links written down, even if those external links are not worth a sot. It will probably going to Afd, and wasting every bodies times. scope_creep (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hey @Scope creep:, why not just regular WP:PROD? UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @UnitedStatesian: With a bit of luck, somebody will come in and add a couple of references, over the length of the Afd. The guy is notable, but there is not the slightest bit of coverage. His books are everywhere, so a good newspaper article reference or two would be ideal, and would be enough for a micro article. The books are those type that do well at Christmas, jokesy kind of stuff, which may preclude coverage, as theyre not important enough to talk about. scope_creep (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hey @Scope creep:, why not just regular WP:PROD? UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @UnitedStatesian: Is that the rule, I vaguely remember reading about it years ago. I don't think it takes cognizance of the fact whether the actual text itself constitutes a valid acceptable sentence in terms of content. The current test is defined as valid, if it has external links written down, even if those external links are not worth a sot. It will probably going to Afd, and wasting every bodies times. scope_creep (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Bill Cummings (philanthropist) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Bill Cummings (philanthropist), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... discospinster talk 21:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Discospinster:, 22 minutes, really? We should block all creation in the mainspace, then. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- 22 minutes is more than enough time to come up with more sources. ... discospinster talk 21:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Discospinster:. I have them all ready to go in, I just can't type as fast as you, obviously. I didn't realize Wikipedia had a deadline measured in minutes. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Good thing there is a draft space where you can work on things at your own pace! ... discospinster talk 01:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited R & G Financial Corporation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Defunct (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
FYI, WP:EXISTING is still an explanatory supplement, not a guideline. The guideline WP:REDNO clearly states templates can have redlinks as long as they are not excessive. In any case, I wrote stubs for all the remaining redlinks so that they're not red any more. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi. You need to supply a reliable source for the date of death of this person. Please note, that another Wikipedia project (such as the Polish one), is not classed as a reliable source. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hey @Lugnuts:, then why not just tag the date of death as {{citation needed}}, rather than removing it? UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. Please see WP:BLPREMOVE. And the burden is with you to cite what you add. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Lugnuts: I thought WP:BLPREMOVE only applied to contentious information. (and only if the person is actually living, of course). And also quoting from WP:BURDEN: "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: The Suite Life of Zack & Cody (season 3) (December 4)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Suite Life of Zack & Cody (season 3) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Suite Life of Zack & Cody (season 3), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Artscape (organisation) has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)- Hey, I notice that after I had declined this Draft, you (as a reviewer) submitted it and accepted it despite no additional changes. I declined the draft based on the lack of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Did you spot something I'd missed? Were there references I misinterpreted? Are you even supposed to resubmit and accept articles in this manner? HighKing++ 18:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hey @HighKing:, thanks for the question. After reviewing in detail, I was of the opinion that the sources do establish notability per WP:ORG, which is why I submitted it and accepted it. I am not aware of any prohibition on such resubmission/acceptance, but if I have missed such a prohibition please point me to it and accept my apologies in advance. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Can you simply point me to any two references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability included in that article and I will take another look. Thank you. HighKing++ 18:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think you need that from me in order to take another look at the references. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- @UnitedStatesian: I had already reviewed the sources and I could not find any that met the criteria for notability before you resubmitted and accepted the article. I provided my reasoning on the Draft page. Hence my request to you here for the references you believe suffice as I have overlooked good references in the past. HighKing++ 10:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I can tell you're not going to respond. I've stuck it in for an AfD, hopefully others might assist in coming to a consensus. HighKing++ 22:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- @UnitedStatesian: I had already reviewed the sources and I could not find any that met the criteria for notability before you resubmitted and accepted the article. I provided my reasoning on the Draft page. Hence my request to you here for the references you believe suffice as I have overlooked good references in the past. HighKing++ 10:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think you need that from me in order to take another look at the references. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Can you simply point me to any two references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability included in that article and I will take another look. Thank you. HighKing++ 18:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hey @HighKing:, thanks for the question. After reviewing in detail, I was of the opinion that the sources do establish notability per WP:ORG, which is why I submitted it and accepted it. I am not aware of any prohibition on such resubmission/acceptance, but if I have missed such a prohibition please point me to it and accept my apologies in advance. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: The Suite Life of Zack & Cody (season 2) has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Flooded with them hundreds 07:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: The Suite Life of Zack & Cody (season 3) has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Flooded with them hundreds 07:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing Moldova in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2012, UnitedStatesian.
Unfortunately Domdeparis has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:
this article is unsourced. How can you mark it as reviewed without at least tagging it ?
To reply, leave a comment on Domdeparis's talk page.
Dom from Paris (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing Moldova in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013, UnitedStatesian.
Unfortunately Domdeparis has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:
again this is unsourced, it should at least have been tagged
To reply, leave a comment on Domdeparis's talk page.
Dom from Paris (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: SS&C Technologies has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Insertcleverphrasehere. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Simon Hope Broadbent, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
— Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 14:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant to send you a note but when going back through my editis I forgot to come back over here. PRODed and CSD tagged articles should not be marked as reviewed, per consensus here. It stops them falling through the cracks if the PROD is removed and the original reviewer doesn't notice (read the linked discussion above for more info). I wasn't implying that your review wasn't accurate or that the article should not be deleted, it's just how we decided to do it moving forward. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 10:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Insertcleverphrasehere: Sounds great, thanks for the clarification. I knew I should have read all 30 Archives! :) UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Huh?
I don't understand why you reverted a justified (because the page doesn't meet WP:GNG), 4+1⁄2-year-old redirect. Redirection is not deletion; please see WP:ATD-R. Miniapolis 01:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- I could not understand this revert either: [1]. Redirection is not "deletion", and the subject is not independently notable of the parent company anyway. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ewer of Saint-Maurice d'Agaune, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint-Maurice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello UnitedStatesian,
- 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)
Disambiguation link notification for December 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited River Horse Brewery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ewing Township (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the Undo!
Thanks for fixing that Fazleyev blank! I got distracted, and din't even realize I did that! –uncleben85 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- You're very welcome! UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, November 2018
Good day. Don't forget to put {{oldrfd}} at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_17#List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, November 2018. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks @Jax 0677:, but I thought {{oldrfd}} was only if the page stayed a redirect, and this is now an article; am I off base here? :UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - If the redirect gets deleted, there is no place to put {{oldrfd}}. If an article gets created, there is a place to put the tag. However, I meant to say at the talk page for List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, November 2018. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
The article List of non-sovereign monarchs who lost their thrones in the 21st century has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Doesn't meet WP:NLIST.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of List of non-sovereign monarchs who lost their thrones in the 21st century for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of non-sovereign monarchs who lost their thrones in the 21st century 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/List of non-sovereign monarchs who lost their thrones in the 21st century 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. Boleyn (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Ways to improve List of monarchs who lost their thrones in the 21st century
Hello, UnitedStatesian,
Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for creating List of monarchs who lost their thrones in the 21st century! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-
Please add references to all articles you create.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Alpha nuclide has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Reg edits on Microland page
Hi,
I got your message regarding paid editing. I had a few doubts. I am fairly new to Wikipedia content editing and would greatly appreciate if you could help.
1. I work for Microland and am not getting paid for making the edits on the page (This is not my role at all). But I have been assigned the task to make the page factually correct. Does this make me a paid advocate? 2. I want to revamp the page with updated content about our history and journey since 1989. Can I share the new content with you for review? If not, whom can I reach out to for this?
Thank you for the help in advance.
UshaMicroland (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the information about cats!
I didn't know I shouldn't be adding categories to sandbox items - oops! Thanks for letting me know :) HereAndSometimesThere (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
List of banks
You deleted many banks of List of banks (alphabetically). This is a list of all banks, so I was wondering why you deleted banks. Thank you for explaining.--Bob Smit (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Is there any reason you removed the BLPPROD for this article as invalid? It seems like a very clear case of an article that isn't yet ready for mainspace and may never be. - Sdkb (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: I agree with you 100%, but BLP PROD does not apply because there are are two external links on the page (not good WP references, but "references" for purposes of BLP PROD nonetheless). Try regular PROD instead. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
You edit conflicted me!
Either way, I just fixed Twinkle's functionality on today's RFD page. (My edit summary had you mentioned in it, but no matter since you saw it and it's now fixed.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Steel1943:! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Why did you move it into article namespace? Ivo (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Kruusamägi:, it looked to me like it was mainspace content; the intro. did not specify anything related to Wikipedia. Feel free to move it back if you think that is the appropriate think to do. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Back in 2014 I created it based on a request from en.wiki and it was intended as a wikiproject page (that competition has grown into international wiki photography competition like WLM or WLE). I can rewrite it into an article, but it wasn't created as one. Ivo (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Bad Boys for Life has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Template:Klasky Csupo
Would you like to create "Template:Klasky Csupo" here at Wikipedia? A certain user was blocked for vandalism. --73.6.75.134 (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
g4
Hi UnitedStatesian. Can you let me know how you determined that Anjali_Mukerjee isn't substantially similar to any of the three prior AFDs (specifically without access to the deleted content) and none of the current sources date past the 2016 AFD? This edit summary concerns me as I'm not sure how a non-admin can sufficiently assess an article deleted 2 years ago. Praxidicae (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae:, thanks for the question; I was basing it on the only prior AfD discussion, which states "there is only one reference link to an article". Since the current article has more, including ones dated after that discussion, I think that is pretty clear evidence the content is not "substantially identical", as g4 requires. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, UnitedStatesian,
I just untagged this category that you created that had marked for deletion because, at that time, it was empty. But it is empty no longer. But I'd like to ask you to assign parent categories to it so that it is findable in the Wikipedia category system. Parent categories are important so that any reader seeking information can find it through more general categories that Category:Phraseology is a part of. Thank you for your help. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Apologies, @Liz: got distracted mid-creation and hadn't gotten back to it. Hate being on that orphan cat. report until the next refresh! UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- No problem, UnitedStatesian. It's actually not so uncommon. Just a friendly reminder! Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
A page you started (Lists of acronyms) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Lists of acronyms.
I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Good idea!
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Britishfinance}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Britishfinance (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
'Notable' in article titles
Hello. Regarding this change, I looked at the guideline you cited and could not find any reference to the word "Notable" in article titles. Can you point me to the proper paragraph? Thanks! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- @BeenAroundAWhile: Apologies, the correct reference is at WP:LISTNAME: "Best practice is usually to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article. Similarly, avoid titles like List of all Xs." UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I was trying to close older discussions but I'm unclear which pages you were looking to have deleted. Is there a list? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- @CambridgeBayWeather:, thanks for taking this on; unfortunately it is an enormous list, with a page for each month beginning with Portal:Current events/November 1994, Portal:Current events/December 1994, Portal:Current events/January 1995, Portal:Current events/February 1995, etc., and then an even larger number of pages for each day, such as Portal:Current events/1994 November 5, Portal:Current events/1994 November 6, Portal:Current events/1994 November 13, etc., etc. Assuming the discussion closes as delete, I would consider tagging them all as CSD G6, housekeeping, to facilitate this; you thoughts? UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Invalid dinosaur moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Invalid dinosaur, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Britishfinance (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
You've missed this one btw. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks @Headbomb:. Adding it to the nom. so all will be decided either way as a complete set. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Hopes all's well with that section now. I know we were going back and forth a bit with editing it. I also performed a couple of edits that make it appear that I'm owning the change of "Withdrawn" to "Not intended as a nomination" so that it doesn't look like you were editing my statement (since that's somewhat of a violation of WP:TPO.) Either way, that section's existence should be noted on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion until the transclusion of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 31 is removed. Steel1943 (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Steel1943:, of course, it is all good, thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Italian hip hop musicians, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Turi and Vacca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
flow arts redirect
Could you please explain what you find objectionable about the flow arts redirect to the category for flow toys? Are you familiar with the subject matter? Have you posted a notice on the pages of the editors of the articles listed in the category? What work have you done on this, what is left to do and do you need any help to do it?User:Pedant (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
LDS/JW book
Split done. The history-split process is simple to perform, but it leaves behind very little evidence that the pages weren't always separate, just as the history-merge process leaves little evidence that the pages were separate. That's why I wasn't willing to do anything before the close — it would look like you'd nominated a page that was already at the right place, almost without any LDS history at all. Also, undoing either a merge or a split can take a good deal of work (see the amusing warning at WP:HM#Manual process and the complex diagrams at that point and a little farther down), so if I'd done the split and people then rejected my idea for some reason, it would have taken a bunch of needless effort to put the split revisions back in the history of the LDS page, since you hadn't asked for them to be trashed. So thank you for withdrawing :-) Nyttend (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
CfD closure
Thanks for closing this discussion! For info, when closing a discussion you are also supposed to remove the tags on the category page and to add an 'old CFD' template on the category talk page. More details see the CfD closure instructions. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Ha, I was just about to say the same! Thanks, and I've removed the tags and documented the result on the category's talk page. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks both, I am using the closing helper script and must not have checked the "make related changes" box. Will watch out in the future. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: List of named storms (I) has been accepted
The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: NuVasive has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Fluxus Heidelberg Center
Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grand Divisions of Tennessee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Memphis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Architecture of lebanon
Over at RfD, thanks for closing mine. But it wasn't "Withdrarn", it was "Withdrawn". What kind of Southern drawl do you have, sir?
That made my day. I am glad that I am not the only one who makes typos. I know it's puerile, but it really made me laugh. So thanks very much. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- thanks @178.164.162.144:. I have to correct it, but hope the laughter lasts nonetheless. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Now I have Foghorn Leghorn in my head saying it. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
MfD closure
Hi. I saw this closure that you made. Can I suggest instead that an administrator hist-merge the revisions, so that it is clear what the source of the article's content was? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Done @DannyS712: histmerge requested. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Redirect categories
Hello, UnitedStatesian,
Please do not blank category pages, especially redirect pages. See CFD Redirect Categories for policy on this matter. Wikipedia keeps article and category redirects and it is not proper to CSD C1 speedy delete empty categories that are actually being used as redirects. If you want a category redirect deleted, please do not blank it but propose it at WP:CFD for consideration. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hey @Liz: thanks; can you point me to a previous CfD discussion for a soft-redirected category so I can see how to spell out such a delete nomination? UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, now I will look or talk to those who have been around longer than I. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
BLPPROD
Hi there, I restored the BLPPROD here as this says To be canceled, this process (when correctly initiated) requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography. Do not remove the until the biography has at least one such source.
iMDb is not a reliable source and as such, does not negate the prod. Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Your Editing Of The Jamie Shupe Article?
Can you explain the reason for removing me from the category of writers and Ocala, Florida where I reside?
You attempted to put me in Genderqueer writers despite me having returned to my male birth sex which makes me question what you are doing?
Thanks.
Jamie Shupe
- @JamieShupe:: thanks for the questions. Category:Writers is a category only for other categories; if you click on it you see yours would have been the only one in it. Similarly, a better category than Category:Ocala, Florida would have been one of its subcategories, such as Category:People from Ocala, Florida. Let me know if you have any other questions. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Next Question: So rather than just deleting the categories, if you know these things then why didn't fix them with the proper Ocala category and writer category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieShupe (talk • contribs) 00:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- @JamieShupe:: I could not find any sourced mention of the location of residence in the article, and the fact that the article's subject has written some things does not not automatically mean the article should be thusly categorized; please check out WP:DEFINING for information about what categories are the best ones to apply. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The PJmedia article says: "As a result, I have returned to my male birth sex.” He announced that he had lived in Ocala, Florida, since July of last year and that, on the previous day, he had been issued a Florida driver’s license identifying him as a male. “In my thirty plus year marriage,” he went on to say,"
https://pjmedia.com/trending/a-transgender-hero-breaks-ranks/
The writer section says: "As a writer, Shupe has articles and essays published in The New York Times,[29] The Guardian,[64] The Federalist,[65] MercatorNet,[66] The Daily Signal,[67] and Medium.[68]"
So at this point, I would like for you to either fix this stuff or undo your edits. As you know, I'm not supposed to edit my own page, so I have to instead confront you about your edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieShupe (talk • contribs) 10:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- @JamieShupe:, I think it is better for you to raise these article's more broadly on the articles talk page, Talk:Jamie Shupe. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@UnitedStatesian, funny you should say that. I posted the PJMedia article on the talk page on February 15th. You edited my page on February 23rd. Do you not read the talk page before you start editing? Or is this editing stuff about running around making mass edits to get awards and decorations from Wikipedia? I'm not supposed to edit the page myself because it creates a conflict of interest, so still waiting on you to fix or remove the errors you created.--JamieShupe (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @JamieShupe:, apologies that I missed the request; we all make mistakes. The request is there on the talk page now. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Fixed — The Transhumanist 20:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
It is like arguing against a person's religion. Policy, logic and other people's views have no power over deeply held beliefs. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, UnitedStatesian,
I saw that you put a possibly empty cat tag on this category. Usually this tag is reserved for tracking categories and other maintenance categories on Wikipedia that might be empty time to time but usually will end up having contents at some point.
What led you to believe this category should be retained even if it is currently empty? Do you expect it to be used in the near future?
I meant to thank you, by the way, for the work you do with categories. It's a not an area of the project that has a lot of regularly contributing editors, so thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- You are very welcome, @Liz:, I enjoy helping out. I marked the cat because it is populated by {{Heteropolypeptide}}, which is transcluded into a number of articles, so the cat should not be empty once the updating process catches up. I dd not want the cat marked as C1 and possibly deleted in the interim. Once the populating begins I will remove {{possibly empty category}}. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Page flagged for speedy deletion
You flagged my page Wikipedia:Outreach_Dashboard/University_of_Derby/5PU506_Content_Development_(January_2019) for speedy deletion under criteria G8. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what this means, or how I fix it. Sorry if I messed up somewhere with it! If you could let me know how to fix the issue, I'll get right on it. Cbderbylib (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Cbderbylib:, sorry about that; you saw I removed the tag. I think the page may be in the wrong place; perhaps it should be in wikiedu.org instead? I'll do some research on my end, but I won't make any changes without letting you know what I find out. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, I appreciate it! Happy to do any changes necessary. Cbderbylib (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi UnitedStatesian. Unfortunately, when WikiProject Portals automated it, they had many of its sub-pages deleted making it impossible to revert to the previous version without masses of red links and distorted layout. You might want to think of restoring the automated version and then trying to get the deleted sub-pages and elements restored first. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Voceditenore:, already on it, have made the WP:REFUND request. Should be good as soon as the request is completed. And great job with Portal:Opera, by the way. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Copying licensed material requires attribution
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Draft:FACC AG you included material from the German Wikipedia. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.17
Hello UnitedStatesian,
- News
- The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.
- 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)
Brussels bombings listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Brussels bombings. Since you had some involvement with the Brussels bombings redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. B dash (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
number9ine
UnitedStatesian, I do hope the name reflects old fashioned American integrity as this handle suggests. Good to meet you, we here at Number9ine are looking to fill in the blanks on many artists who's contributions have been overlooked or not yet identified, we are excited to work with editors at Wikipedia and welcome guidance. If you would set up development page(s) for photographer(s) Tracy (Charles L. Tracy), Ruby (Ruth Tracy). Number9ine (production studio), 9 (Patrick di Santo), Anna Cleveland (model) and Ruby Studios, that worked together with Stephan Burrows, Halston, Elsa Peretti, Jean Michel Basquiate and others before their untimely deaths or hiatuses. Currently are working on a The piece "9" about American artist: Patrick di Santo and his affiliations that should be of interest to yourself not only for his contributions to the arts world but also his contributions to fathers's rights, children's rights, parent's rights, disabled person's rights and psychology. We will look forward to assemble important information in this one very convenient location. Please advise us regarding moving the current drafts we have been assembling to the best location for review. Again good to meet you. (Number9ine (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC))
Point72 Edits
Hello UnitedStatesian, this is Alex Reads. I have been making edits on behalf of my employer, Point72 Asset Management, for a couple of years now with the assistance of volunteer editors. I have been transparent about my edits and seek to improve the article by Wikipedia best practices standards. I saw that you had most recently edited the article and wanted to let you know it needs some updating. Would you be willing to either a) let me make the updates and then review them; b) let me post them on your talk page, or the article talk page, for your review; or c) review them and make them on my behalf? Thanks! AlexReads (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @AlexReads: I am happy to help. Please post the requested updates on the article talk page. I and other editors will review and make them. Thanks for you help on the project! UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
What is being done about portals right now, as we speak...
While the deletion discussions surrounding portals have been raging on, here is what has been going on behind-the-scenes...
Currently, there are 546 portals, comprised of around 100,000 pages in portal space, the rest beyond the 546 being subpages. Most of those subpages contain an excerpt, copied and pasted from some article. Such excerpts never change, and they go stale over time (no longer matching the original source material), but at least they’re excerpts from quality articles and not 1 sentence from a stub or a list.
The Portal Cleanup WikiProject was launched on March 8th, and has grown to 5 members (4 reverters plus 1 person who edited the page to fix a mistagging by me). We've been busy reverting portal redesigns that broke the portals so that all those subpages will be needed, which causes some problems because of outdated excerpts, but it’s the lesser of two evils.
The design concept called "selective transclusion", which is used for migrating excerpts (moving them to the base page), does so by displaying part of an article the same as a template. An added benefit of this is that it also keeps them fresh, by always showing the current version of the content that is transcluded. This sort of thing is okay as long as it doesn’t transclude garbage (see above).
Our parent project has also worked on ways to make excerpted content, and listed entries, dynamic, so that the material or links shown automatically change over time without the intervention of an editor. Selected articles, could be set up to change daily, for example, to present a different article each day. This can even be made to show a different article every time a user visits the page. Currently, we can do this from a set list. We're trying to make it so that the list is updated automatically from an external source that is regularly maintained. Well, they said this back when they were starting up the project, but then they gave us slideshows, which aren’t as good. It’s like when time and time again, the English Wikipedia community tells the WMF, “we want Visual Editor enabled on talk pages” and then the WMF gives us Flow. Never mind, that’s unfair to the slideshows.
Other automated solutions are being judged with regard to whether they need to be undone. Examples of good changes to portals include automatically updating did you know entries, and replacing outdated news from dead-project-walking Wikinews with auto-updating In the News sections that provide news about spider monkeys and the Richmond Spiders on Portal:Spiders (this has since been fixed to actually provide news on spiders), and so on. This is why bug fixing is also important, for both new-style and old-style portals. Make sure to report bugs at the Portals Wikiproject's talk page, and be prepared for a quick response. I have a lot of gripes about portals, their WikiProject, and its leaders, but the people there are nothing if not responsive.
Once we find portals that have been degraded by the subpar automated design, they will be reverted to versions that invariably still have problems, but at least they have fewer problems. This will probably increase the amount of maintenance they need, so consider maintaining portals in areas of interest. A single editor will then be able to watch over far more portals than before, ideally, thanks to MfDs (and maybe CSD X3 soon) decreasing the overall number of portals.
The Portal WikiProject is dedicated to fixing, improving, and maintaining the entire portal system and every portal in it. Come check us out, and if you like what you see, feel free to join. We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.
Let's do this.
See ya at the WikiProject!
TL;DR I’ve got a list of portals that have been reverted or may need to be reverted (though not all do) from their automated versions over at WP:WikiProject Portals/Cleanup. You may want to list your reverts there (add the portals to the bottom section if they’re not there), or use the list to check more portals. The page also has some tips on when to revert. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Portal Creations
@UnitedStatesian, For making many portals that I made, which is too narrow, no needed, etc. Is this a suggestion for to take a break from making portals?-- Happypillsjr ✉ 05:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Happypillsjr: Yes, I think such a break would well serve both you and the project, and has no downside, since there is so much else within Wikipedia to work on. But that's just my opinion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry!
Hello, UnitedStatesian,
I meant to undo your edit on Category:Kevin Lilliana, not rollback your edit. The category is no longer empty and, even if it was empty, it's not wise to remove all of the parent categories as these should be checked before category is deleted. My apologies for the mistaken rollback. Liz Read! Talk! 16:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- No worries, was my mistake; only wanted to rm Category:Living people (should have used HotCat). UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Inquiry from a Public Relations Representative for Cantel on Assessing Wikipedia Article
Hello UnitedStatesian,
My name is Saralynn and I am a Public Relations professional at GCI Health, an agency specializing in healthcare. We’re reaching out on behalf of our clients at Cantel to potentially update outdated information found on the Cantel Wikipedia page.
We’re reaching out to you because we know Wikipedia users depend on active, qualified editors for accurate and supported articles. We felt that given your previous efforts editing Wikipedia pages on UBM Technology Group you might be interested in reviewing this page through the lens of updating older information.
To further disclose our position, we are aware that per Wikipedia’s guidelines, neither the company nor the company’s representatives can make direct edits to Wikipedia pages. Respecting these rules, our priority is ensuring that the Wiki has the most up-to-date information – we’re reaching out in the hopes you may be able to assess the current state of the page against publicly available information on Cantel to make accurate and appropriate updates.
Please let me know if you have any follow-up questions.
Best regards, SLK2019 (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Submarine merge went in the wrong direction
The newer portal (always automated) should have been just deleted in favor of the older portal which has a lengthy history and all the sub pages attached. BusterD (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:Sofixit if you feel that way. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- The merge discussion indicated the outcome I've described above. I don't like to edit war. I will fix it but didn't want to war about it. Thanks for your agreement. BusterD (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- statesman you make me laugh~ ~(: mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The article Corteva Agriscience has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Company has not yet generated enough media coverage under the Too Soon and Crystal Ball standards, and the article makes no attempt to assert notability.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Corteva Agriscience for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Corteva Agriscience 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/Corteva Agriscience 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. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Being human
It's a sign of a meticulous editor that they can spot an apparently misconceived redirect and nominate it for deletion. Most just walk by.
It's a sign of human fallibility that sometimes that initial judgement doesn't stand up to further scrutiny.
And it's a sign of a really good conscientious human editor that they scrutinise their own work, and gracefully withdraw if they find it wasn't what it seems.
So thank you for all of the steps which led to this[2]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks @BrownHairedGirl: that mean so much to me to hear from any editor, but especially coming from you. ~~
Just to let you know...
I have removed all the deletion notices on portal pages just now. Because you are applying to be added to the check page and used this as the rationale to be added, you probably want to add other reasons for needing the rights. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 14:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Dreamy Jazz: but I don't think you got them all. Portal:Iran/Persian_literature is just one example. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian, Ah. I see the problem. Forgot the shortcut. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian There are 100 pages left now. Do you want to do them when you have WP:JWB or not? (I'm happy to leave them if that means you can get the rights now). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Dreamy Jazz:, that would be awesome, thanks so much. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian, Ok. The page which you would generate list from (using What Links Here) is User:Dreamy Jazz/PPD. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian. You are on the CheckPage. Are you going to remove the deletion notice in a run? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 19:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have done the run for you. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Dreamy Jazz:} thanks so much, sorry I didn't get to it. I am sure I will have the opportunity, as I have more WP:REFUND requests to submit shortly. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have done the run for you. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian. You are on the CheckPage. Are you going to remove the deletion notice in a run? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 19:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian, Ok. The page which you would generate list from (using What Links Here) is User:Dreamy Jazz/PPD. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Dreamy Jazz:, that would be awesome, thanks so much. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian There are 100 pages left now. Do you want to do them when you have WP:JWB or not? (I'm happy to leave them if that means you can get the rights now). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian, Ah. I see the problem. Forgot the shortcut. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 16:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pulp and paper companies of Turkey
A tag has been placed on Category:Pulp and paper companies of Turkey requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DannyS712 (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
About your proposal to add Charles Dickens in WT:VA
It contains a spelling error: cutural should be cultural.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for letting me know! I have fixed it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
About ＃hashtag articles
Should this really be in the mainspace? It isn't an article and so shouldn't it be in a help namespace? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 19:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- It is in the main namespace so that it will appear when a user types # in the searchbox. There is a related discussion going on at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_April_26#＃willpower. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- It should not be in article space. That's not where we keep help info. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of ＃hashtag articles
A tag has been placed on ＃hashtag articles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
some sort of instruction / help mistakenly created in article space.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Tagishsimon (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
＃hashtag articles listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ＃hashtag articles. Since you had some involvement with the ＃hashtag articles redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Tagishsimon (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
About removing speedy deletion tags
Hello,
I noticed you removed the speedy deletion tag from Wikipedia:＃hashtag articles (diff). Although I understand the speedy deletion wasn't valid (as it did not seem to say why it met one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion), you shouldn't have removed it as you were the page creator (and I think you do know that). I don't mean this as any warning etc., but it is meant to be a friendly reminder that the administrators will check the talk page first and also check the rationale before deletion.
Again, this isn't meant as a warning, but just as a friendly reminder. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- I actually didn't realize one should not remove speedy tags from pages one created; can you point me to that guidance? Thanks in advance! UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian, see WP:CSD. It says
The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so.
Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)- Ah, I see that now: it is even in bold. Learn something new every day! Thanks again. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- UnitedStatesian, see WP:CSD. It says
Falsely attributed revision
I received a notification saying a revision of mine to the Bee Gees article had been reverted [by you], but I did not make this revision. I previously noticed the change when I was notified of it (since I'm watching the page), and how inappropriate it was, but not that I was supposed to have made it. I'm changing my password and hope this will suffice to avoid further occurrences of such misattribution (there was another in the last couple of days, which I did not make and never would have), but I'm not sure it will since whoever's doing this might be within Wikipedia itself and thus presumably have access to my new password as well. In any event I regret the inappropriate change even though I didn't make it myself. –Roy McCoy (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)