Archives

Archive 1

Hey there! Thanks so much for your feedback on the Generation Lab draft article. You mentioned that the references I used do not demonstrate "significant coverage" of the Generation Lab but rather represent "just passing mentions." Although the articles I cited only reference the Generation Lab once, the entirety of the article revolves around the data that the Generation Lab provided to them. The data collected by the Generation Lab was exclusively provided to Axios and as a result, the article would not exist without the Generation Lab's contributions. Let me know what you think and if you have any advice. Thanks so much!

Hi, thanks for the message. It is irrelevant for the purpose of establishing notability what data produced by the Generation Lab was used by a third-party. You need to provide multiple independent secondary sources with significant coverage of the Generation Lab, and not simply references to byproducts of its work used by other sites. I'd suggest reading WP:GNG. Best of luck! nearlyevil665 19:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User,

Thank you for your quick feedback and comments. I am not a lawyer and I am not paid to write this page, but I agree with you that some parts are not objective enough. Thank you for your advice, I will be making improvements.

Regards,

Genuine69 (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Genuine69[reply]

I don't understand what's wrong with the article. I sourced multiple different news sites covering him. I'm alittle confused Lilzlulz (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. I will revise and resubmit once the show is more established and there is more critical coverage.

Jhofferman (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nearlyevil665. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

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

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, 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) 11:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Magicofwiki (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Medialab (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Magicofwiki (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi im not compensated for this post - im simply creating a page to reflect the company which owns a variety of brands that already have wiki pages like datpiff, whisper etc all of which are hyperlinked and medialab is mentioned on each of those pages

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Heycambry (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A list music (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gerrit Wunder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Identifying unreliable sources

Hi, I created a page about a film composer mentioned clearly at IMDB, and the sources are reliable. Can you tell me which are the "unreliable" sources you state as a reason for not allowing the article?

A list music (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Fadzi02 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Praise Matemavi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am writing to ask why my article was not accepted for submission. It is very much similar to other biographical articles of that nature. I am writing about a woman who has been extremely remarkable who is the first African woman in her field. I looked at Dr. Claire Karekezi who is approved on wikipedia and I don't see any difference between the two. I would appreciate your insight. Thank you very much.

Fadzi02 (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia article about Claire Karekezi (there is a photo in Commons). Karekezi is Rwanda born, US & Canada trained, and has chosen to pursue her career as a neurosurgeon in Rwanda. David notMD (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nearlyevil665. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:

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

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! - TheresNoTime ^😺 12:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, On a recent article I posted about Diana Burnwood you tagged it for deletion, under the reason she's a tertiary character and doesn't qualify. Burnwood has appeared in nearly every game to date, and in some games has over fifty minutes of dialogue. She had the Hitman comic series developed about her parents' loss, was the most related to Agent 47, etc. How is she 'tertiary?' She was very important i most of the games.

Thanks, Eye Ay En

Hi,

Thank you very much for reviewing my work and for your help. I really appreciate it.

I am part of the Impaakt community and I was searching for Impaakt on Wikipedia. Since I could not find an article about the platform I thought that initiating one could be interesting for the experience and because Impaakt and Wikipedia work on the same model. Moreover, I hoped that more experienced Wikipedian would contribute to my article.

While searching, I found this page: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impak_Finance about a similar company. However, I struggle to understand how it was possible that this article was published: (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impak_Finance) and that mine (Draft:Impaakt) was rejected. In fact both articles look quite similar. Do you know the reason?

Would you have any additional advices to help me get my first article published on Wikipedia? Is there a way for me to get contributions from experienced Wikipedians on my Draft:Impaakt ?

Once again, thank you very much for your help and your time.

Best-

Please how can my article be approve Samiyun (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi. whats wrong with my first article? ty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Parallel_Finance --EDS2020 (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not supported by reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Also of use could be Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). nearlyevil665 19:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LA Post, executive.berkeley.edu, www.entrepreneur.com, bloomberg and coindesk reliable sources? --EDS2020 (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not simply a matter of the subject being mentioned in a reliable outlet. There are other factors as well, such as that it shouldn't be a trivial coverage or routine reporting. I'd suggest reading up on Wikipedia:SIGCOV. nearlyevil665 19:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Articles for Creation Barnstar & The Teamwork Barnstar
	Congratulations! You have earned The Articles for Creation Barnstar and The Teamwork Barnstar for reviewing an outstanding 390 drafts and doing 39 re-reviews during the WikiProject Articles for creation July 2021 Backlog Drive. Also, well done for scoring 6th place overall. Thank you for your work to improve Wikipedia! On behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation, Enterprisey (talk!) 00:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Sir/Ma'am, I have gone ahead and updated a research section and included a variety of sources. Please let me know if there's more that I need to do to integrate your advice. Thanks and sending best regards.

Hello Nearlyevil665,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nearlyevil665. Do you have any feedback for me here yet [1] ? Kind regards, --Fastnacht (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as these are German sources I'm a bit torn if they qualify sufficiently so I'd prefer to leave this draft for a German-speaking editor. nearlyevil665 20:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you have to hit resubmit at the draft page for it to get resubmitted for repeat review. nearlyevil665 20:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• TheBandShirleyFan (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Rica Cruz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May I request for a reconsideration of my submission on the grounds of the subject having significant coverage in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The following articles featured the subject extensively: Modern Parenting and Esquire Magazine.

Let me also add that I included citations to the academic articles written by Dr. Rica Cruz published in a peer-reviewed journal. May I know if these are considered "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"? In the guidelines for determining notability, it specifically says for academics, which Dr. Rica Cruz is, "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."

I would also like to ask how to improve the article since the subject has proven notability mostly in social media. References that suggest this are in the form of video recording of shows that are aired on national TV. Again, according to the guidelines on notability of entertainers, the subject has also had significant roles in multiple notable television and radio programs, and made prolific contributions as a journalist in several online media platforms. I wonder how these could be referenced in the article to improve it.

Thank you!

TheBandShirleyFan (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Academic publications by the author himself are primary sources, not secondary. Furthermore, articles where the subject is mentioned in a trivial manner or where the subject is expressing opinions in an expert capacity do not qualify as a pass of notability. We need reliable sources that cover the subject, not sources where the subject expresses their expert opinions. As to your point about the subject meeting Wikipedia:NENT, I don't see how the subject meets it.

You are free to resubmit and another reviewer will take a look at it. nearlyevil665 08:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• TheBandShirleyFan (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Rica Cruz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

TheBandShirleyFan (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• AnnLWSFebruary84wiki (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Lesbian Writers Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

AnnLWSFebruary84wiki (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a misunderstanding of what a reliable secondary source is. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. nearlyevil665 06:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reference for my submission for the LESBIAN WRITERS SERIES

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3r89c3cc I was told that the article I submitted - the LESBIAN WRITERS SERIES did not sire reliable sources - here is a link to the web story on the UCLA website:

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3r89c3cc

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar
		For helping with reviewing drafts, one of the last few active around MoonlightVectorTalk page 12:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MoonlightVector^{Talk page} 12:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this very much, thank you! nearlyevil665 06:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I updated the submission with more 3rd party reliable sources such as Nasdaq and Yahoo, although I'll caveat some of these might be redundant probably coming from the more niche news sources themselves. I believe there might be a lack of in depth coverage by mainstream reliable sources as this is a niche industry so I would please ask you to review the more niche cryptocurrency sources in depth and judge for yourself that they are more in depth than the mainstream ones.

I am coming from the community of this crypto project and the outcome is to have a wikipedia page even if just a stub so they can submit for a verified blue check mark on twitter so that users of the community don't get scammed by fake accounts.

Could I maybe request for a second opinion perhaps from the cryptocurrency working group to examine this submission?

Blockfanatic (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC) Blockfanatic[reply]

Hi sir you declined my draft so please you search on google and get sources because I am new at wikipedia 2401:4900:51DA:F5EB:6433:25E8:33BE:A5F3 (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

I beefed up the draft: Mansi Choksi with in-line citations and references to demonstrate notability as per your suggestions, including links to independent sources such as the United Nations Foundation, New York Times, Goodreads, International Women Media's Foundation, Overseas Press Club and Wallace House. Do you think you can let me know what you think? Grateful for your time.

--Navnine9 (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Thank you.[reply]

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navnine9 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i just receive a message from wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Celia_Stefania_Centonze#c-FireflyBot-2021-10-24T14%3A04%3A00.000Z-Concern_regarding_Draft%3AMarco_Nereo_Rotelli) that tells that the page of Marco Nereo Rotelli is still not submitted for review, but i was thinking that it was. So what i have to do to make it done? Thank you in advance for the answer

Celia Stefania Centonze (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure what you mean exactly. If you're trying to have your draft submitted for review, all you have to do is press the "Submit the draft for review" button on the page: Draft:Marco Nereo Rotelli. But I must warn you that after a quick look I highly doubt there will be a favorable outcome as there are no sources and it reads like a brochure. I'd suggest reading Help:Your first article before moving any further with this. Best of luck! nearlyevil665 06:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to review my article draft regarding the Benzinga news source. I am sorry, but I was confused about the statement that my article's contents "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I was under the impression that all of the sources I cited are reliable and independent (including Bloomberg, Detroit Free Press and Toronto Globe & Mail -- all major news outlets) and all of the sources are specifically about the subject itself (its creation, the early Dan Gilbert investment, the major brokerages using it and the recent majority stake purchase from a private equity firm). I feel so dumb because I thought I did this correctly, but where am I going wrong? I really want to get it right this time. Thanks! And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• TroyKFD (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ghost Drops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey there, wondering why my ghost drops page was declined. I used the same reference websites as other cannabis pages on wiki like Tokyo Smoke - for example: Corporation, Canopy Growth. "Canopy Growth to Acquire Hiku Brands to Strengthen Retail and Brand Portfolio". www.newswire.ca. Retrieved 2019-09-08. and Ltd, Hiku Brands Company. "Tokyo Smoke cannabis retail stores are Coming to Manitoba". www.newswire.ca. Retrieved 2019-01-30. - not sure why they would be approved for them and not ghost drops. you can do a quick google search of ghost drops and see it is the top results. what else can I use for references?

TroyKFD (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reaching out. Press releases and other types of corporate sponsored content are not secondary sources. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Furthermore, please see WP:INN as the mere fact that other articles exist doesn't mean they should exist. nearlyevil665 13:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. hopefully I'm responding correctly. If I removed the three newswire.ca references, would the draft then pass? Ghost Drops is one of Canada's most iconic cannabis brands and they are definitely notable enough for a wiki page. Is there anything specific I could add to get it approved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TroyKFD (talk • contribs) 13:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than free to resubmit with the references amended. Another editor will take a look, but I'd be careful with assuming that any given topic is notable. With a simple Google search I see mostly coverages of the company's routine business operations, which don't qualify towards corporate notability. I would suggest adding references that have significant coverage about the company, rather than some rehashes of partnership announcements. Best of luck! nearlyevil665 13:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for all your help. I omitted the references and resubmitted it. If it gets declined then I guess I'll have to wait until more news articles come out. One quick question. Would an interview in a notable magazine be a valid reference? the CEO of ghost drops has a High Times magazine article coming out, would I be able to use it? again, thank you for your time and help — Preceding unsigned comment added by TroyKFD (talk • contribs) 13:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ariyanalam Khan (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bodmaish Polapain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ariyanalam Khan (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lemmer is apparently notable, but you seem to have removed all the evidence for it when you accepted the draft. Check WP:PROF--the significance as a researcher is usually shown by the influence in the field, and this is normally shown either by citations, or as awards. The original draft was inadequate: it asserted high citations ,but did not show them You removed even the assertions. You or the originale ditor, need to back the list of most cited publications, and add the numbers. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, thanks for reaching out! I'm fairly active in the review of academics and I've had a case with an admin (cannot remember which one) who unequivocally removed the list of publications from a professor's page (including their citation count) saying that it was a indiscriminate list. I usually feel like walking on thin ice every time I review an academic's profile as I've had countless conflicting impressions from various editors here (including admins) about how their notability is established.

My assumption with Lemmer was that his Google Scholar profile demonstrated a pass of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) - I generally assume that over 5 publications with >100 citations in established peer reviewed journals is a demonstration of notability. If the original editor or someone else wishes to provide additional bits about the subject's influence or achievements they are more than welcome; I simply felt uncomfortable accepting the article without any secondary sources to back those up. nearlyevil665 05:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I open a page in my laguage so I dont need it in english version anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aqademik.com

But it would be great if we can just redirect to https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqademik.com thank you!

Turansaim (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like a good faith editor so I will be blunt: I tagged your article for speedy deletion because it was written in a promotional tone and the company was not notable. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest if you are affiliated with the company and also Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure if you are being paid. Failure to do so might result in a permanent ban so I would advise you to familiarize yourself with the rules and follow them to the letter before creating another article. Best of luck! nearlyevil665 16:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little puzzled that you concluded. she did not meet WP:PROF, as she holds a distinguished professorship, which is by itself enough. Judging by the CV,it was awarded for her retirement. (the article does need some clarification of the publications and other editing). DGG ( talk ) 09:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct that she does indeed meet WP:PROF. I must have missed the Distinguished Professorship bit during review. Your note on the CV is well taken. I will integrate your feedback into my reviewing process. Thanks for reaching out! nearlyevil665 10:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

==Draft:An Yin And I'm puzzled here--you concluded he did meet WP:PROF but said the early career was not verified by sources--but much of it is are in the CV, which is in the external links, and an official CV is sufficiently reliable for the purpose, as hundred of afds have demonstrated. (sometime some aspects of the earlier life of person cannot be verified--if I think its exaggerated, I often simply remove that part)

the only requirement for passing an article from afc is that it will probably pass afd. All three of these would passedfd. All should have been accepted. They can be fixedin manspace. That said,I often do make the minor fixes for an improved presentation before accepting a draft. It's much easier to do that than to hope the original editor will.

I will mention that a custom has developed, which I follow, that if the editor appears to be a good faith editor, I do not make in most cases make 2 successive declines of the same draft, but let another reviewer does. DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please may I ask you to take a further look at this article. I'm struggling with its notability and referencing. You may well be right that it stands a better than 50% chance of surviving a deletion discussion (or did when you accepted it), so your eyes a second time and your thoughts would be very useful. It was on my watch list, and my attention was drawn to it when DGG showed some concerns with it. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reaching out! This was a few months back but giving it a second look I remember it being approved on the basis of the newspaper references and other seemingly reliable Hebrew sources demonstrating WP:CORPDEPTH and there being sufficient sources to survive a deletion discussion. It could use some clean-up though and I certainly should have slapped it with the relevant tag. My bad on that one! nearlyevil665 16:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before I delete it, please look at this draft and the corresponding illustration. I think this would have justified more than just a simple decline. (I'm going to use G3) DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who doesn't skimp on their CSDs, I'm not sure how I missed marking that. My usual combo is decline + CSD in cases such as this; I might have forgotten the latter! Thanks for being on the watchout! Enjoy the G3. nearlyevil665 06:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we tripped over each other on Draft:George Nikolic (urologist). I trimmed out all the obvious promotional fluff and accepted, and when the script refreshed the page I noticed your decline. Can you take a look at the current version of the page and let me know if you still think it shouldn't be in mainspace? I think I addressed all your complaints, but the sourcing is still a little light for key claims. Rusalkii (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the heads up! I gave it a second glance and it looks much better! I agree the sourcing needs a bit more work though, but nothing out of the ordinary that couldn't be handled through relevant tags. nearlyevil665 18:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! I've removed your decline notice from the IP's talk page so that they don't get too confused. Rusalkii (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so diligent! nearlyevil665 19:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your speedy review of the above. With regards to your reasons for decline, I had the impression that citations 1 and 2 were independent, reliable and gave in-depth coverage. Can you give me specific feedback about where you think they fall short, or did I misunderstand the reasoning?

1. https://www.nonprofitpro.com/article/2019-unsung-heroes/
2. https://www.hhrjournal.org/2017/11/patent-fighters-taking-on-big-pharma/

Note: I did add a few other things to the article before I decided to write to you, so it will look a little longer than when you saw it. CT55555 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ne665 - would you be so kind as to reformat your position as it could easily be overlooked. Using bold text for your Support (or however you wish to word it) will eliminate the possibility (we hope). Thank you for your participation. Atsme 💬 📧 15:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sure thing, it was an oversight from my end! nearlyevil665 15:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nearlyevil665,

Thank you for a speedy recovery of the page my first Draft page. I have recently drafted a page Draft talk:Prilenia Therapeutics and it has been declined because;

- (1) "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia" and - (2) "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. "

Can you kindly assist in helping me get in published. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keleidoscope Dream (talk • contribs) 08:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I advised Keleidoscope that it is inappropriate to ask a declining Reviewer for help on a resubmittal of a draft. David notMD (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template ((db-afc-move)) has been created - this template is similar to ((db-move)) when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Umar Nurmagomedov. Thanks! Cassiopeia talk 21:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I got addicted after the drive on WP:AFC to sort out Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations. I created this guide, which reflects what we were asked to do there. I hope you may find it helps. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fiddle, thanks for the message. I'll keep that guide in mind and apply where necessary! nearlyevil665 16:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also identify, at least, the first revision that contains the copyrighted material and include that in the revdel request. Preferably the last revision too but this tends to be more obvious. Nthep (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep Good point well made. I've added that to my sub page. It's not necessarily the easiest thing to achieve Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, not always easy. But if you can locate it, the the admin who does the revdel can make a double check that the right revisions have been caught which iS a definite dase of two heads being better than one. Nthep (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• LuckydogFour (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Olink Proteomics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Nearlyevil665, thank you for the feedback on the page I contributed about a company. I was careful to take a look at another published wikipedia page for a company that does very similar work in a similar field (called SomaLogic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SomaLogic ) and took my cue from that page.

To have more third-party proof of notability, would you recommend more references to footnote, or have other input? I am still new and learning the ropes around Wikipedia, and find it very rewarding.

Sincerely, Dale LuckydogFour (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the message. For companies to be considered notable, they need to satisfy Wikipedia:NCORP and need to demonstrate significant coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources to that end. As of now you have either primary sources or mentions in routine business operations, which do not count toward notability. nearlyevil665 18:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LuckydogFour (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nearlyevil665,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 823 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 862 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing ((subst:NPR invite)) on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Nearlyevil665

Thank you for creating Kusal Maduranga.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|North8000)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

North8000 (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @North8000:, unsure why I got this notification, as I didn't create the article. In fact, I had previously nominated it for deletion. nearlyevil665 11:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you reviewed the draft Paolo Petrocelli. The education information in the draft is confirmed in the HuffPost article and La Provincia di Cremona articles. I have also added a few more sources for your review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiploCult (talk • contribs) 19:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the message. I looked again, and you're on the right track with the first three articles, but having looked at the talk pages for the previously deleted article and your talk page, I'm a bit concerned with the excessively long history of undisclosed paid editing and COI involved. Make sure you've made all proper diclosures about your connection to the subject as per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I'd suggest asking over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk for more experienced editors to chime in on this. nearlyevil665 07:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Nearlyevil665.

I was told at Help Desk that there is no need to post there and that I should just wait for regular reviewing. Could you please take another look?

Thanks DiploCult (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nearlyevil665, Paolo Petrocelli has just been included in the 40_Under_40 by Fortune Italia. I believe this an additional good source.

https://www.fortuneita.com/ranking/petrocelli-paolo/#

Could you please kindly check the draft again?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiploCult (talk • contribs) 10:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nearlyevil665,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000^[a] at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.^[b]

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, ((NPP backlog)), to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 13954 articles, as of 12:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing ((subst:NPR invite)) on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

1. ^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
2. ^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Nurmagomedov, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

HeinzMaster (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard - the bug is in the page log. Your UP already confirmed that you created the article. Atsme 💬 📧 03:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

, no worries! When I saw the discussion I started doubting if I had actually authored the article but glad it's all been sorted out!i

nearlyevil665 07:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please create the article of Grandsone of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Son of Yashwant Bhimrao Ambedkar Mr. Bhimrao Yashwant Ambedkar.

He is Working President of Buddhist Society of India and President of Samata Sainik Dal. He is so much active on the field of social and religious work.

sumedhdmankar (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nearlyevil665,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers

The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing ((subst:NPR invite)) on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2021. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nearlyevil665,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nearlyevil665,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nearlyevil665,

I was going through some expiring drafts, saw your comments on a few and realized that it has been a while since I saw you working on the project. So, you are missed! I hope you are away doing some fun, off-wiki activities and nothing stressful is happening. Come back whenever you have the urge to edit! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's been quite a year! My life's taken so many unexpected turns, and seeing this message after almost a year away from Wikipedia makes it feel even more unreal. I'm honestly surprised and kind of touched that someone noticed I was gone ^_^. I'm going to take it step by step and try to get back into it! nearlyevil665 12:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nearlyevil665,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nearlyevil665,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Hello Nearlyevil665,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Natalia Alekhina.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add ((permission pending)) to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Estopedist1 (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, mate! My bad. Correct licensing! Estopedist1 (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nearlyevil665,

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

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

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

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

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

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nearlyevil665:

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

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

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

There is a backlog of over 2100 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hi Nearlyevil665, and welcome back! Looks like you've gotten back into reviewing newly created articles. Would you like your new page reviewer rights restored? If you give Wikipedia:New pages patrol a re-read and confirm having done so, I'd be happy to restore the right. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you got them back already. Nevermind, and happy editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for checking in and yes, my new page reviewer rights have already been restored! nearlyevil665 12:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Abdul-Kerim Edilov and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nearlyevil665! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation 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! Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul-Kerim Edilov, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cassiopeia talk 03:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nearlyevil665,

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

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

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

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

2023 Awards

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

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

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

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

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

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