Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Sir:

Your edit, "it [the LEOSA] does not override the internal policies of a department or agency to which an officer may belong.[5][6][7]," states as fact something that is, to say the very least, disputed by some weighty legal authorities, including the federal lawmakers who actually wrote the law. In fact, two of the three documents for which you retained footnotes -- all of which I posted when I originally created this article-- explicitly contradict your statement. The FOP documents states in part, "There may be agencies which enforce or adopt policies, rules, regulations,or employment conditions which discourage or punish officers which choose to carry while offduty, but such actions do not mean that the officer cannot carry lawfully under the provisions of this statute. Your agency, however, can prohibit you from carrying your agency-issued weapon, which is the property of the governmental entity." The California AG memo states, "Off-duty restrictions appear to be superceded by this Act." The Police Chief article alone does support your reading, and I believe that this footnote should also be retained, to show that that question is disputed. However, the Police Chief article position finds no support in the official report of U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee makes clear, critics of the bill attempted -- and failed -- to amend the bill to exclude agency internal policies from its scope. Police chiefs and sheriffs have no authority to set personnel policies for their agencies at all, except the authorities granted by state and local laws -- and the LEOSA explicitly overrides "any . . .provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof" that conflicts with the congressional purpose. If the LEOSA says that a state legislature cannot nullify the right conferred by Congress -- and it does -- then it cannot be that an official whose sole authority depends on state law may nullify the right.

FedDoc (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)FedDocReply[reply]

I've read your response. It seems to me that there are two distinct questions here. The first is, if an officer is carrying a concealed firearm outside his jurisdiction and the local authorities (where he is carrying) question him about it, does the internal policy of his employing agency have any bearing on whether his conduct is legal (i.e., whether it is protected by the federal law)? On this point, I think there is no real dispute between us or among the authorities: It is quite clear that the officer's employing agency policy has no bearing at all -- all the sources agree that Congress has conferred the right directly on the officer, and he can legally exercise that right in any jurisdiction whether or not his employing agency likes it. Yet, I think your formulation, "it does not override the internal policies of a department or agency to which an officer may belong," is ambiguous and would be read by some to suggest that an agency can indeed strip away, from its own employees, a right that Congress has conferred directly on those employees. I take it that you do not intend this meaning.

The second point, on which there IS some dispute, is whether an employing agency has any legal authority to punish an off-duty officer for engaging in legal behavior that Congress has specifically immunized under the LEOSA. The California AG opinion is not a model of clarity, but the statement most on point, to my mind, is clearly, "Off-duty restrictions appear to be superceded by this Act." The other two sources do give terse nods to the notion that agencies can punish officers for engaging in the congressionally protected behavior, but don't explain on what legal authority such actions would rest. More importantly, by orthodox canons of statutory interpretation, any court would give far greater weight to the official report of the Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives, which produced the law, and where the impact of the bill (now law) on internal agency policies was specifically debated and voted on. This is the most formal and definitive type of "legislative history," which is why I devoted two paragraphs to it in the original article. I don't see the justification for purging this material or the link to the Committee Report, which has far more legal authority than any of the other documents -- and it is particularly baffling to see the justification for the deletion being that the presentation was "one sided." On this point we're discussing, the congressional history IS one sided, because the authors of the bill and the opponents both agreed that the effect of the bill would be to overrode internal agency policies. The opponents didn't like that aspect, unsuccessfully tried to add an exception to the bill, and cited the override of agency policies as one of their justifications for voting against approval of the bill.

Whether an agency can actually punish an employee, for engaging in behavior that Congress has explicitly immunized, will ultimately be determined by some court or courts. Such a court will almost certainly give weight to the Judiciary Committee report, and I see no justification for excluding it from the wikipedia article.

I should add that I have no personal "stake" in this legal issue. I am not a law enforcement officer. But I think if any police chief tries to punish an employee for engaging in the behavior that Congress has immunized in this law, and the matter gets before a federal judge, the chief is very likely to lose. Moreover, I think I could probably find some additional legal memos that support this interpretation, but there won't be any that are more authoritative than the official report of the congressional committee that wrote the law.

FedDoc (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)FedDocReply[reply]

Sir,

I think your latest edit was a considerable improvement. However, I thought it was still somewhat murky regarding the point that is actually disputed. Everyone (I think) agrees that an individual law-enforcement officer is protected by federal law when he exercises the right conferred by the LEOSA -- that is to say, he does not commit a CRIMINAL offense under any state or local law, regardless of whether his employer approves of his off-duty gun carrying or not. That is a big deal, and it should be made clear that there is no dispute (to my knowledge) over this point.

The dispute is over whether the employer can punish an employee administratively for exercising that right -- fire him, give him a demerit, whatever.

On this disputed issue, the information you cite is pertinent, regarding the recognition, by bill opponents, that the bill was intended to override local agency policies. But even more significant -- and what the courts look to, primarily, is what the AUTHORS of a law said about it -- not the opponents. The most significant thing about the committee report is that the SPONSORS of the bill AGREED that they were writing a law that overrode agency policies, and they VOTED DOWN the Scott Amendment, which would have allowed agencies to continue to enforce anti-carry policies on their own employees.

The report of the Judiciary Committee is not merely another opinion -- it is the most formal statement by the authors of the bill as to what the bill does. For many laws, the initial committee report is muddled by later amendments -- but that did NOT occur with respect to H.R. 218. Rather, the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee BECAME the law, without any further amendment. So when the courts look for guidance on this law, the report -- particularly, the majority report -- is exactly where they will look.

So, I've done an edit that I hope you will agree makes it even more clear what the argument is actually about, with examples of authority on each side of the disputed issue. On one side, you have the members of Congress who wrote the law, saying -- as they crafted it, not afterwards -- that it would override agency policies. (And you had the opponents admitting that this was so, and complaining about it. There was NOBODY saying that it did NOT override agency policies.) On the other side, you have some local agencies that noe assert, after enactment, that they can still punish employees for exercising the federally conferred right. But I am skeptical that anyone will be able to point to any case in which an agency actually punished an employee for exercising the federally protected right, and made it stick.

FedDoc (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)FedDocReply[reply]

Well, I'm almost there.

I just need some few weeks to send to u the Superior Court of Justice and São Paulo State Court of Justice of Justice. These decisions about the Brazilian Municipal Guards are final decisions.

Just wait :) Bryard 22:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — comment added by Bryard (talk • contribs)

Good day!

I'm trying to help out with the updating/restoration of the EIDIA wiki entry. The original author appears to have deleted his/her user profile. And we weren't able to comply with the WP:PROD as indicated in User_talk:Idssf.

Any input on how to go about it would be appreciated. Thank you very much!

Nono (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appreciate your reply!

Nono (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been away on Holiday. There is a load of legal evidence that will be presented to Wandsworth Council. I will not post it until after the situation has been resolved and it has been published. Meanwhile Redbridge Parks Police will be mounting their legal challenge in a few days. I do not intend to log on to Wiki for a few weeks, as it has been deemed as inaccurate due to the amount of unqualified amateurs editing it and cannot be relied on as evidence. (Do not take this personally it applies to all of us). So there is no point in messaging me until at least September 14 2011.

Catch you later.TopCat666 (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there - you left an "out of date" notice on the UK Immigration Service site. It has since been re-written and updated. Can tag be removed? Agent 1135 Thanks for advice Agent1135 (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Ninetyone! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Please use WP:CFD for category renames such as from Category:London students' unions to Category:Students' unions in London rather than doing it manually. Tim! (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may feel that noone would object but you would be surprised. Tim! (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:National law enforcement agencies of Bolivia, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! You tagged the entry on my Biog saying "This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia."

It's a negative statement which doesn't leave me any wiser, I'm afraid. I've looked the Wikipedia guidelines and still find I'm unable to spot examples of the sort of criticisms you are making. Perhaps you would be kind enough to let me know examples (from the text) of what you mean, or still better make the necessary alterations yourself

As you will see the article has been revised and added to by a variety of users over many years. Indeed it seems to have gained a momentum of its own, most of which thankfully is reliable. However, I do visit the webpage to make sure the material is completely accurate, as some press reports quoted may themselves be inaccurate. As you will understand we are at the mercy of a wide range of anonymous contributors, and I'm keen that the information should be and should be seen to be accurate and truthful.

Can you help?

Best wishes Owen Spencer-Thomas

Hi! You tagged the entry on my Biog saying "This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia."

It's a negative statement which doesn't leave me any wiser, I'm afraid. I've looked the Wikipedia guidelines and still find I'm unable to spot examples of the sort of criticisms you are making. Perhaps you would be kind enough to let me know examples (from the text) of what you mean, or still better make the necessary alterations yourself

As you will see the article has been revised and added to by a variety of users over many years. Indeed it seems to have gained a momentum of its own, most of which thankfully is reliable. However, I do visit the webpage to make sure the material is completely accurate, as some press reports quoted may themselves be inaccurate. As you will understand we are at the mercy of a wide range of anonymous contributors, and I'm keen that the information should be and should be seen to be accurate and truthful.

Can you help?

Best wishes Owen Spencer-Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yawja (talk • contribs) 20:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yawja (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC) My identity from previous message re: This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia.Reply[reply]

Category:Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (United Kingdom), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Election agencies of the United Kingdom, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Have added links to Ivor Spencer-Thomas biography. Jogger223 (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article City guard (Poland) 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/City guard (Poland) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Admiralty Constabulary Cap Blue Ring KC.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 ((OTRS 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. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Admiralty Constabulary Cap Blue Ring QC.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 ((OTRS 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. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Admiralty Constabulary Cap White Metal KC.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 ((OTRS 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. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Current ministerial offices in the United Kingdom, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.   JaJaWa |talk  07:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please do delete the speedy contest deletion message from the article and help to make the article in an elegant manner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sridhar_babu_addanki swaroop 07:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakthi swaroop (talk • contribs)

A tag has been placed on Traffic officer (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Widefox; talk 02:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Traffic officer (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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 removed 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. Widefox; talk 20:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COASTIE I am (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your time on pay to fly ! I left you a note on the talk page for elaboration if you wanted to. Cheers CockpitSeeker (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Admiralty Constabulary Cap Blue Ring QC.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ninetyone,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ninetyone. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ninetyone. 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)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. 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/History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. 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/History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ninetyone. 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)Reply[reply]

As a result of this redirects discussion, the purpose of ((Year)) has been changed from ((Year needed)) to ((YEAR)). I'm writing this message to let you know that there are existing uses of this template on your user subpage User:Ninetyone/testtemplate which need to be checked manually and migrated as appropriate. Deryck C. 17:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Ninetyone! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Neighbourhood policing team—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Surachit (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Senedd Cymru – Welsh Parliament, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gareth Bennett. 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) 06:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Government Property Agency (United Kingdom) you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. 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) 22:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Church of the Holy Cross, Two Mile Ash has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:NCHURCH; very small church that has only existed for 30 years; almost no coverage outside primary sources

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. Spiderone 17:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Church of the Servant King, Furzton has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:NCHURCH; very small church that has only existed for 28 years; almost no coverage outside primary sources; no evidence that the building or the organisation have established notability or significance; notability not inherited by being part of the Watling Valley Ecumenical Partnership

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. Spiderone 17:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I— and everyone I know—uses wiki to gain knowledge. The piece I added to was woefully incomplete so I completed it. It’s now a wonderful article that people can use and it hurts no one to leave it there. I hope you reconsider. Thanks Arbogast54 (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

well, i tried everything i know. i'll jst leave what you left on there originally and that'llhave to be good enough. at least you left the work i didn;t do, so that's good. we are back with how it looked before i got started. i'll go try another websiteArbogast54 (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m not sure this is how to respond to your letter to me or not.

I simply added to another, already existing document in hopes that Wikipedia likes having good pieces like this where people can come to see information they desire. The previous was woefully incomplete, and now it is 95% completed. Wiki is where people go to learn things, and this piece satisfies that urge while hurting no one if it stays. I hope you reconsider — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbogast54 (talk • contribs)

Hello Ninetyone, a few days ago you requested for the article I created, James Dougherty (police officer), to be deleted. Since then, only opinions to keep the article have emerged from other users and I would like to ask you, in case the article will be kept, when the deletion template will be deleted Again?

Greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebiggangwiki (talk • contribs) 20:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thanks for flagging this article PrintReleaf. Sorry, I'm kinda new at this and this was my first article, so I'm not sure what I need to fix. Maybe it's too promotional? I tried to make it encyclopedic. Worked it over a number of times. Welcome any suggestions, but I really don't want to have to take up your time. Love what you guys do and thanks for the heads up. Kansas19 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ninetyone,

Thanks so much for your response. I'll work on this (PrintReleaf) some and see if I can improve it. I think I understand the criteria, and appreciate your taking time to write me on this. Hope all is well. Thanks again. - Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kansas19 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ninetyone,

Hope you're doing well. Just a quick thanks for tagging this article.

So, I deleted the proposed/deleted files. I hope I did this correctly (doesn't feel like I did). I spent some time sourcing references which I've added. And did more research on the company. Aside for the additional references which I think/hope improved this, I think this company should be on Wikipedia due to its high impact on the environment. To be able to partner with some of the largest office printing companies worldwide and then partner with entities that certifiably plant trees globally is an important achievement. It's a small company making a big impact, and doing it in a certifiable, open way, and modestly which probably accounts for the limited press coverage. Thanks for your patience and any help with this as I get the hang of all this.

Cheers,

Bob Kansas19 (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ninetyone - you reverted my edits to this page and asked that I leave a message which I am very happy to do as I have no desire to engage in an editing war however, I don't see how it is appropriate for my edits to be continually reverted especially when those edits are endeavouring to make the section on the page more appropriate. Given that 'bullying' is a very serious accusation, and once which the articles cited have shown to be an unsubstantiated, it is unfair and inaccurate to cherry pick individual lines from the article and quote them in this section. The version I have amended is entirely accurate so I am just keen to understand why you are so quick to keep reverting it? Many thanks Veraci2020 (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Defunct departments of the United Kingdom Government has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Paul W were:

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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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.

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Numerous sources are cited (WP:REFBOMB), but some make no mention of Slajchert; other sources are unreliable (Slajchert's Instagram account, Facebook, Wikipedia). Notability requires extensive coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources (and not just passing mentions); the material currently presented does not demonstrate notability. The text also contains numerous embedded external links - see WP:EL.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jason Slajchert 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:Jason Slajchert, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Paul W (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Ninetyone! Having an article 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! Paul W (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Paul W (talk · contribs) - the article was created by User:Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (talk · contribs), not me - I just set it for consideration as I'd noticed it had been there for a while :) ninety:one 08:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know - the AFC process occasionally breaks the link to the original author. Paul W (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey - just wanted to drop you a note to explain. You uploaded File:UKHSA Logo from GOV.UK.png to Wikimedia Commons, but these logos are covered by copyright, so they have to be uploaded to Wikipedia instead. I have uploaded a version to Wikipedia at File:Logo of the UK Health Security Agency.png and swapped it out in the UK Health Security Agency article, and nominated the one you uploaded at Commons for deletion. I also noticed the version you uploaded had the text italicised - not sure why this was! ninety:one (reply on my talk) 17:31, 19 May 2021

Got it - makes sense. For some reason, on my browser, GOV.UK italizes department logos, so that's the reason behind the italics. HumveeHardhat (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might be interested in this. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...and this. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mutt Lunker: So predictable, each time. Thanks for the heads up, definitely them! ninety:one 19:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Ninetyone,

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)

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[reply]

Category:Market police departments of the United States has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Apocheir (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. As far as I can see, you didn't give s reason for the removal of the distinction between Private and Personalised. People often read sections of articles, so shouldn't necessarily read about the difference when it's mentioned further down in the article. Perhaps you'd care to say why, please ? Heath St John (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm very sorry - I did type a reason but I think I've somehow got two conflicting user interfaces and I can see it didn't save! The service is called "Personalised Registrations", and although you might consider it also sells "private" registrations as well, "Personalised Registrations" is what it is called, so we should refer to it as that. ninety:one 09:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Ninetyone,

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 795 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 868 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)

There is a discussion about a page you created at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2022 May 27 § Rhode Island Capitol Police. Apocheir (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Ninetyone,

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: 8511 articles, as of 16:00, 7 February 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[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

Template:UK Parliament bills has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Ninetyone,

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[reply]

Hi Ninetyone,

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[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[reply]

Hello Ninetyone,

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!

A tag has been placed on Category:Maps of police forces of the United Kingdom indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Ninetyone,

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.

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[reply]

Hello Ninetyone,

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 Ninetyone,

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[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Metropolitan Police Traffic Criminal Justice Unit 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/Metropolitan Police Traffic Criminal Justice Unit 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 until the discussion has finished.

Elshad (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

Hello Ninetyone,

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[reply]

Hello Ninetyone:

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 1600 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Ministerial positions in the Government of the United Kingdom has been nominated for merging to Category:Ministerial offices in the United Kingdom. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 08:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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