This user may have left Wikipedia. Notecardforfree has not edited Wikipedia since May 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

• Please put any new message at the bottom of the page
• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4

Please take this tea as an apology for my long awaited GA review of Reed v. Town of Gilbert! My sincerest apologies! :) Carbrera (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Reed v. Town of Gilbert you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Reed v. Town of Gilbert for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So you're always telling me to use bluebook style, and I've been looking and can't find a bluebook citation template (since I'm too lazy to just learn the style). I have some experience writing citation templates, and since this seems to be a standard for SCOTUS, if not law articles, I think this might be a useful addition and get more people to contribute to law related articles. Since you're more familiar with the style, would you be willing to help me write the template (or series of templates)? I'm thinking something like ((Cite bluebook)). Wugapodes (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Wugapodes -- I'm happy to help in any way I can. Template:Ussc will format case citations according to Bluebook conventions, though I don't think it allows you to cite a specific page in a slip opinion if a case hasn't been published in the United States Reports. Also, it doesn't include citation parameters for books, articles, or websites. I'm not sure if there is an easy way to include parameters for a variety of different kinds of sources, so we may need to create different templates for different kinds of sources (i.e. ((Bluebook Article)), ((Bluebook Book)), and ((Bluebook Website))). In any event, here's a basic rundown of the order of parameters for a few common types of sources:

• Case citations for cases published in reporter: (1) Case title (italicized and followed by a comma), (2) volume of reporter in which the case is published, (3) abbreviation for reporter in which the case is published,(4) the first page in the reporter in which the case appears (followed by a comma), (5) the specific page to which you are citing, (6) the year in which the opinion was issued (for reporters that publish cases from multiple jurisdictions, an abbreviation of the jurisdiction will appear before the year). Example -- Joe v. Schmoe, 111 F.3d 222, 333 (14th Cir. 2016).
• Articles published in law journals/law reviews: (1) Author first name, (2) author last name (followed by a comma), (3) article title (in italics), (4) Journal volume, (5) journal abbreviation (in smallcaps), (6) first page of article (followed by a comma), (7) page of article to which you are citing, (8) year of publication. Example -- Joe Schmoe, How To Win Appeals Without Trying, 111 J. Law & Other Pol'y Issues 222, 223 (2016)
• Newspapers: (1) Author first name, (2) author last name (followed by a comma), (3) article title (in italics), (4) name of newspaper (in smallcaps and followed by comma), (5) abbreviated month of publication, (6) day of publication (followed by comma), (7) year (followed by comma), (8) page(s) on which the article appears (preceded by the word "at"). Example -- Joe Schmoe, Man Bites Dog, Anytown Times, Sept. 21, 2016, at 4-5.

I hope this information is helpful, and please let me know if you have any questions about this. Thank you again for all your hard work improving Wikipedia's coverage of SCOTUS cases -- your work ethic is truly commendable. Otherwise, I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very helpful! ((Cite court)) already formats opinions in the bluebook style, so I didn't need to make one of those. I did make ((Bluebook journal)) which can use some testing to make sure I've accounted for everything and that it renders properly. I've made and added a number of them to Category:Bluebook style citation templates so feel free to add any more you know of or come across to that. Thanks for all your help! Wugapodes (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wugapodes: The template looks fantastic! Thanks so much for making the template; it will be an invaluable tool for editors who write legal articles. Everything looks good, except that the text of the journal title looks like it may be a smaller font than other text (compare this citation with the template^[1] and this citation without the template^[2]). The only other thing I would mention is that you may want to add parameters for articles with multiple authors (see this guide for dealing with multiple authors) and you may also want to include a parameter for explanatory parenthetical statements, which would appear after the citation (see the example in footnote 2 below). Otherwise, let me know what I can do to help. If there are specific templates that you want to work on, let me know and I can give you the order of the parameters. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should have remembered that ((smallcaps)) doesn't work inside templates. I've fixed it. I'll work on the multiple authors next, completely forgot about that. I'll definitely keep you in the loop! Thanks for being so helpful with all of this, it really is appreciated! Wugapodes (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Reed v. Town of Gilbert you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Reed v. Town of Gilbert for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you do me a favor and look at an Afd on Robert Louis Miller. I came across it by accident (I don't normally take any interest in WikiPolitics), but once I saw the article it struck me as pure self-promotion by a non-notable subject. I'm not soliciting you to vote one way or the other or to get involved other, just to give me your perspective. Have I gone off the deep end? Why are two people (who don't appear to be lawyers or have any interest in legal subjects) support keeping the article? What is to be made of the subject claiming extortion? (I wouldn't know how to complain of extortion at Wikipedia. How did he?) Why does one of his supporters bring it up? I makes me very suspicious. P.S. If you are too busy, don't worry, it's not that important. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia that shouldn't be here. AnthroMimus (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AnthroMimus: Thanks for letting me know about this article and the deletion discussion. To respond to your questions:

• Should Wikipedia have an article about Mr. Miller? I don't think you're off the deep end here. As far as I can tell, Mr. Miller has not been the subject of in-depth coverage by reliable sources, though it looks like the prison Yelp reviews have received a fair bit of discussion in the press. Nevertheless, because he has not been the subject of such coverage, I don't think he passes WP:GNG.
• The scam allegations: I was not aware of the "Orangemoody" scam until I took a look at the AfD discussion you linked above. I don't want to speculate about the veracity of the scam allegations, but whatever the case may be, I don't think that should influence the outcome of the AfD discussion; the AfD discussion should simply discuss issues relating to WP:DELETE.

I'll say a few words over at the deletion discussion, but feel free to let me know if I can be of help in any way. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See newest edit regarding headstone controversy. More material added to counteract hatchet job and non-NPOV of L.M. Regards. PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PraeceptorIP: Thanks so much for your efforts to resolve the issues relating to the headstone. I have been watching the edits to the article over the last few weeks, and I am surprised that so much non-NPOV material has been added. I agree that the non-neutral portions of the article certainly need to be revised -- I'll try to go through it over the next few days to prune out some of that language, but let me know if there is anything I can do to be of service. Otherwise, I hope all is well with you and that you enjoyed a nice weekend. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you know anything about LM and why he has a mania to do in the defunct Justice? I knew WOD slightly, and he was as obnoxious and sloppy as Posner (a co-clerk) said he was, although at the same time absolutely brilliant and with a prodigious memory. But I can't imagine why, 40 years after his death, anyone (viz. LM) would care enough to go out of the way to malign him. PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PraeceptorIP: I don't know much about LM. I have only interacted with them once or twice on Wikipedia. I can't imagine why they would want to add so much negative material about Justice Douglas, but I also noticed that they added more questionable material in Learned Hand's article, and they also added a rather large image of Justice Douglas in the article for Sierra Club v. Morton.

I've always heard Justice Douglass described as a complex individual with an incredible intellect. A few years ago, I found this interesting clip of Justice Douglas on the game show What's My Line? (Bennett Cerf identified him as "the author of several best sellers"). C-Span also has footage of Justice Douglas on The Mike Wallace Interview. He certainly seems like a fascinating person. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Notecardforfree! I hope things are going well for you. I wanted to know if you'd be willing to look at Heffernan v. City of Paterson before I nominate it for FA. Thanks! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 20:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be more than happy to take a look! I'll set aside some time over the next few days to give it the attention it deserves, and I'll post my thoughts on the article's talk page when I'm done. Thanks again for your hard work with the article -- I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wugapodes: My apologies for not looking at this sooner (it's been a busy week), but I have posted comments about the article on the article's talk page. I will take a closer look at the section about the Opinion of the Court this weekend and I will post comments about that section soon. Please let me know if anything is unclear or if you have any questions. Otherwise, I hope all is well and that you enjoy the upcoming weekend! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 24 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sturgeon v. Frost, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the United States Supreme Court's recent ruling in Sturgeon v. Frost began as a dispute about a hovercraft, but "the stakes in this case are potentially huge"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sturgeon v. Frost. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

On 27 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Menominee Tribe of Wis. v. United States, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to one commentator, a recent United States Supreme Court ruling will "cast a shadow over equitable tolling cases for years to come"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Menominee Tribe of Wis. v. United States. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 29 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in a recent United States Supreme Court decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined to remove the "doctrinal wall between corporate and unincorporated entities"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 30 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ocasio v. United States, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one commentator suggested that a recent United States Supreme Court decision may "raise more questions than answers"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ocasio v. United States. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 3 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Totality of the circumstances, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that recent United States Supreme Court decisions may have created "drug-dog and drunk-driving exceptions to the totality-of-the-circumstances approach"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Totality of the circumstances. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not an insignificant company. There are few companies making conventional electric ovens in the UK. Certainly not many at all for the domestic market. Chandley are what you might call 'industry-standard' for bakeries - they are almost de rigueur amongst those 'in the know'. There are not actually that many manufacturers of domestic large electrical appliances left in the UK. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DinosaursLoveExistence: It certainly looks like the company has a strong presence in the industry, but I am struggling to find sources that talk about the company, its history, and its significance. I know that oven manufacturers don't often make front page headlines, but do you know of any sources that discuss this company? Perhaps it is discussed in a trade journal? Wikipedia articles need to demonstrate the verifiability of information in articles by citing to reliable sources (per WP:V). Likewise, we generally only provide standalone pages to articles when they pass relevant notability guidelines (see WP:GNG), which is established by coverage in reliable sources. In any event, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia; I always enjoy learning about companies with unique histories! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious again, your Schmerber v. California, establishing that police cannot forcibly intrude into the human body without a warrant!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too lazy to start a new thread: thank you for a thank you today (and many before)! Would you take a look at my open FAC? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I will definitely take a look at the FAC this week. I am a little busy today, but I will take a close look Monday or Tuesday of this week. Thank you, as always, for your amazing work. Your kindness is so incredibly refreshing. I hope you are enjoying a nice weekend! All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Returning from a nice long hike: yes, I enjoyed the weekend, hope you too, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That anonymous person is making a lot of silly changes. PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PraeceptorIP: I completely agree that the anon's stylistic changes are unnecessary, and I have found the need to revert his/her work on several occasions. Some of their edits are helpful (see, e.g., this edit and this edit), but like you said, many involve needless stylistic changes (see, e.g., this edit). I'm not sure what we can do about it, but it's definitely a huge pain in the neck to go through all those edits. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~The Special Wikipedian Tribble Award~ Go forth and multiply, we need more pedians like you!

You're a very special Wikipedian in my book. Being a mindful, considerate collaborator working to improve controversial articles for the benefit of the project is not an easy task, especially considering some of the mine fields one has to navigate in the face of relentless edit disruptions. It's not a simple Tiny Tim Tiptoe Through the Tulips, for sure. Thank you for all you do and all you've done to make editing an enjoyable experience. Atsme📞📧 22:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for the kind words, Atsme. This is truly an honor :-) Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you previously contributed to a deletion discussion for London bus route 391, another similar deletion discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 53 which you may wish to give your input on.

Note: I've placed (or am in the process of placing) this notification on the talk page of anyone who took part in the original deletion discussion, as the most recent similar discussion, regardless of deletion preference, which is allowable under WP:CANVASS. The only exception being if that person has already contributed, or has indicated on their profile that they are inactive.

Thanks for your time. Jeni ^(talk) 10:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Penumbra (law) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mr rnddude -- Mr rnddude (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Penumbra (law) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Penumbra (law) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mr rnddude -- Mr rnddude (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm wondering why I was reverted at WT:MOS. Graham (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Graham11: my sincere apologies! I was browsing my watchlist on my cell phone this morning and my clumsy fingers must have accidentally pressed the rollback button -- to be honest, I was not aware that I made the mistake until I got your message. I certainly didn't intend to delete your comments, and thankfully it looks like another editor has already restored them. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries! I just figured I'd check with you before reverting you myself. Cheers, Graham (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Gaming the system?. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to contact you outside of Wikipedia pages (privacy reasons) about an important matter. I noticed that you are not setup to receive emails. I would greatly appreciate it if you can contact me. Toda, WannaBeEditor (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WannaBeEditor: I just sent you an email. Let me know if you did not receive it. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nc4f, I'd like to be able to eml you too off WP net. rstern@khhte.com PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PraeceptorIP: I just sent you an email to the address listed above. Let me know if you did not receive it. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Notecard, the S Ct cite -- 136 S. Ct. 2056 -- is now available. You may wish to replace slip op cites (?). Also there is some interesting Commentary. E.g., http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/opinion-analysis-the-exclusionary-rule-is-weakened-but-it-still-lives/ https://law.stanford.edu/2016/07/05/utah-v-strieff-a-bad-decision-on-policing-with-a-gripping-dissent-by-justice-sotomayor/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/utah-streiff-sotomayor/487922/ https://verdict.justia.com/2016/06/28/potential-landmine-waiting-utah-v-strieff http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/chemerinsky_has_the_supreme_court_dealt_a_blow_to_the_fourth_amendment/ Link to podcast at http://www.fed-soc.org/multimedia/detail/utah-v-strieff-post-decision-scotuscast http://www.fed-soc.org/blog/detail/utah-v-strieff-fourth-amendment-rights-without-remedies-and-the-problem-of-arbitrary-police-power

Cheers. PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PraeceptorIP Thanks so much for these very helpful links. Updating Utah v. Strieff has been on my "to-do list" for a while now, and hopefully I will be able to devote more time to it over the next week or two. The Yale Law Journal Forum also recently published an interesting piece titled "Predicting Utah v. Streiff's Civil Rights Impact". As for the citations to the slip opinion, I have a bunch of articles where the citations are to the Court's slip opinion, and I agree that it is a good idea to start switching the citations to the version of the case that appears in the Supreme Court Reporter. Eventually, my plan is to update the citations to the version that appears in the U.S. Reports, though as you know, it will still be a few more years before the 2015 term cases are published in the U.S. Reports. In any event, thanks so much for your help with this article. I hope all is well. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For the great work you did in salvaging Enforcement, and converting it into a well-written article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks, RickinBaltimore! I enjoyed working on this article. Many of Wikipedia's articles about broad legal concepts are in poor shape ... hopefully I'll have a chance to work on a few more in the near future. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

MB298 (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm confused by this edit to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. The word "major" now appears twice in the hook. Is that intentional, or inadvertent? Mathew5000 (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Mathew5000, that was my mistake — I'm not sure how I missed the second appearance of the word "major" in that hook, but that was certainly an inadvertent error on my part. My intent was to distinguish SMS Custoza from previous ironclads (see Drache-class ironclad), but I must have missed the "capital ship" qualifier later in the sentence. In any event, I went ahead and restored the previous version of the hook. Thanks so much for catching this! All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Notecardforfree. 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]

On 24 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Here I Am (novel), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that while writing Here I Am, Jonathan Safran Foer would move between rooms of his house whenever he experienced a "Jonathan block"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Here I Am (novel). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there,

I'm hoping to solicit some feedback for a brochure that will be distributed to students editing political science articles (with a focus on theories and laws). It will complement the other editing brochures and interactive training offered by the Wiki Education Foundation. I saw that you're one of the active WikiProject Law members, and wonder if you'd be willing to take a look? If you're so inclined, the draft is here: User:Ryan_(Wiki_Ed)/Political_science. Even if you take a look and don't have any suggested changes, feedback to that effect would be helpful, too.

Much appreciated. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ryan (Wiki Ed): Thanks for the reminder about this. I do want to offer some feedback, and I hope to be able to leave comments in the next day or two. I am still catching up on work after going out of town for Thanksgiving, but I should have some free time coming up in the next few days. Thanks so much for taking the time to make this guide! All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ryan (Wiki Ed):, I left a few comments on the talk page of the draft. Thanks again for your work on this! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if this goes on the talk page or user page, so I'll try it here first -

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For being generally encouraging to new editors! MBUSHIstory (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks, MBUSHIstory! If I can ever be of assistance, please let me know. And thank you as well for your excellent work to improve our coverage of legal cases. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See User talk:207.181.215.128‎; PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PraeceptorIP: thanks for the notification about the discussion. I left a comment on the IP's talkpage. Needless to say, I agree with you 100 percent. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now there's another idiotic comment at Talk:Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, Nowa describes himself on his User page as: "A US patent agent specializing in business method patents." I suppose that means Alice put him out of business. I too am a patent agent (as well as a law prof who teaches § 101), but I view Alice with great equanimity. PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PraeceptorIP: And now another familiar voice has started a RfC about the cartoon. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 13 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Harvard Environmental Law Review, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the focus of Harvard Environmental Law Review was changed because the original format was "too ambitious"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Harvard Environmental Law Review. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Notecardforfree. I'm back from what turned out to be a long wikibreak after the wikicup and am looking to get back into some writing (the back end processes are not nearly as interesting). You were fun to work with before my break, and I think some good collaboration would be fun. Are there any articles you've been wanting to tackle lately that I could help out with (SCOTUS or otherwise)? If you're interested, I've been wanting to get Loving v. Virginia up to FA quality especially since the renewed interest from Obergefell and the recent movie. Hope you've been keeping on well, let me know. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi Wugapodes -- thank you very much for the kind words. I very much enjoyed working with you as well, and I am very impressed with your technical knowledge (and your commitment to keeping things working behind-the-scenes). In politics, people often say "don't ask how the sausage is made." I'm sure the same is true about many of the behind-the-scenes functions here at Wikipedia. I would love to take you up on your offer to collaborate on an article or two (or more, as time permits). Loving v. Virginia is definitely in need of some cleanup, and I'd love to expand the article's discussion about scholarly commentary on the case. Here are a few other articles that I think might make for a fun collaboration:

1. Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley (1982), a fascinating SCOTUS case where the majority ruled that a a public school was not required to provide a sign language interpreter for a deaf student. You can read the opinion at this link. According to SCOTUSblog, the attorney who argued this case was the only deaf lawyer to have argued at the Supreme Court.
2. City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan (2015), an incredibly sad story of a disabled woman who was shot by police. SCOTUS held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established standard under existing law that the officers needed to accommodate her disability.
3. Kerry v. Din (2015), this was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether there is a constitutional right to live in the United States with one's spouse. The case was viewed by some as "proxy war" for Obergefell. I started this article last year, but I'd love to expand it and possibly take it to GA or FA status. If you'd rather work on an article that already has some content, this might be a good choice.

There are dozens of other projects I have on my to-do list, but let me know if any of the above look interesting. Otherwise, I hope all is well and I hope you are enjoying a nice Monday afternoon! All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They all look interesting! Are my interests that transparent, haha. I think Hendrick Hudson would be a good place to start; old enough to have some good scholarship on it and historically interesting. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with the levels of notability in the world of law, so would you give Lettmaier a peek, and weigh-in on this BLP's Talk page? I'm thinking now that maybe her book is more notable but maybe not. Thanks in advance!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi Atsme -- thanks so much for letting me know about this discussion. I left a comment over on the article's talk page, but in a nutshell, I think one could make a fair argument that she passes WP:PROF's first criterion. I also think that her book is definitely worthy of a standalone article. In any event, I hope all is well with you and that you are enjoying a lovely holiday season. Best wishes for a happy and healthy 2017! All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, NCFF - it seems to me that from both an academic and professional approach, the BLP meets notability for inclusion. I may be too lenient but her accomplishments (scholarly) and legal professorship/director position are not exactly commonplace, or are they? What I've experienced in some notability discussions is that notability expectations for some editors lean more toward fame than notability. For example, how many millions in monetary contributions make a philanthropist notable? I believe notability should be determined by what published sources have written about the philanthropist, including motivations, efforts and the result of those efforts rather than focusing on the amount of his/her contributions. Another question, how many sources meet the requirement for "multiple independent sources"? Is 3 enough? There is also the issue of academics being relatively low key, lacking in MSM attention, and we're supposed to take that into consideration. Anyway, long story short - I was hoping you would write a paragraph or two that focus more on the legal aspects of her accomplishments and views which can easily be cited to independent sources. I can't seem to wrap my head around the legalese in order to expand the article but maybe if I had a starting point, I could join in the expansion. I'm thinking maybe we can elaborate on Lettmaier's position vs what John Doe believes and/or what the law dictates, and that will help make her notability clear, or maybe it won't. --^{Atsme📞📧} 12:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Atsme: I'll add a paragraph or two over the next few days, and I will continue searching for additional sources that discuss her contributions. In general, I share your perspective regarding the difference between fame and impact. Unfortunately, legal historians devote little attention to the legal rights and duties of women prior to the 20th century. At some point, I'd love to spend significant time cleaning up Legal rights of women in history; right now, it doesn't discuss the rights of women in the United States. I've always love the phrase "you can only take one step at a time" . . . I think it is especially applicable to our work on Wikipedia. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Atsme: I added a paragraph to the article that describes her contributions to her field of scholarship. I tried to make it as accessible as possible, though if there are portions that you think are too dense or unclear, please let me know and I will try to clean it up :-) Otherwise, I hope 2017 is going well for you. I just returned from an impromptu vacation, and I hope you had a chance to enjoy some rest and relaxation over the holidays. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, NFF - my "vacay" started in September and it's still in process, if you're of the mind to call it a vacay. I'm on a small island in the Dutch Caribbean tending to business. Regarding the article, I think independent sources were the primary issue. I tend to be a bit more lenient when sourcing academics, especially considering the caliber of this particular academic and the impact of her book in a subject area that is not highly publicized, except maybe in the past by Johnny Carson. 😂 While I realize we should avoid compromising GNG, there are the deserving few, some of which are female, who don't get media attention. In the interim, porn stars are inundated by press hounds, and their BLPs are rarely challenged. I don't think that's the kind of message WP intends to send to our readers. Thanks for your help! It is greatly appreciated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christmas tree worms live under the sea...they hide in their shells when they see me, So with camera in hand I captured a few, and decorated them to share with you. Atsme📞📧 15:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Atsme:Many thanks for the holiday wishes! I hope are also enjoying a festive holiday season as well. Best wishes for a happy, healthy, and fun 2017! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!
	Thank you for helping make Wikipedia a better place. Blessings. May we all have peace in the coming year. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope your new year is going well. I've been working on Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley and am having an interesting time with one of the citations. I'm quoting the opinion at 188 where they are quoting the text of the. However the text at the current 20 U.S.C. § 1401(18) is not the text that is in the opinion. It was probably amended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but I'm not sure when or how to find out when. How should I go about citing this since directing people to the current statute isn't particularly helpful as a citation? Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 00:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Wugapodes -- thank you very much for the kind new years wishes. I recently returned from an impromptu vacation, and so far the year hasn't thrown me too many unexpected surprises, so I'll say it's been successful so far :-) I hope things are going well for you too, and I hope you were able to enjoy some rest and relaxation over the holidays. I just took a look at the Rowley article, and it looks like you've done fantastic work so far! Many thanks for helping to improve this very important article. I expect that the Rowley article will see a surge in traffic over the next few months as the Supreme Court decides Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. FYI, SCOTUSblog has posted a recap of today's oral arguments for that case. I'll give the Rowley article a more careful read-through over the next few days, and I'll see if I can find law journals that comment on the Rowley case.

As for your question about the citation, if you scroll to the bottom of the text of section 1401 at the Cornell site, you will see a list of congressional enactments that created/amended the law. Unfortunately, when evaluating legislative history, there is no easy way to match portions of text with the act that amended that text. For this statute, if you click the link for "Pub. L. 108–446, title I," it will take you the U.S. Government Publishing Office's website, which provides a version of the congressional act that reintroduced the Individuals with Disabilities Act in 2004 (Public Law 108-446). That Act changed the definitions enumerated in 20 U.S.C. § 1401 and moved the definition of "free appropriate public education" from subdivision 18 to subdivision 9. The Cornell site also provides a link to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel website, which displays a version of the act as it appears in the United States Statutes at Large. For more information about citations to congressional acts, see this useful guide from Marquette University.

When citing to a statute that has since been amended by a subsequent act of congress, per Bluebook rule 12.2.2(b), writers should cite to the old version of the statute and then include a parenthetical statement after the citation to explain that the statute has been amended. In this case, the full citation would look like this: 20 U.S.C. § 1401(18) (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9), Pub. L. 108–446, title I, § 101, Dec. 3, 2004, 118 Stat. 2652). To make a long story short, I think the important thing to do is simply let readers know that section 1401(18) is now codified at section 1401(9). I hope this is all helpful and not too arcane, and please let me know if I can be of any assistance. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And here I thought Chicago Style was complex! It took a couple read-throughs but it makes sense. I'm glad to hear that your year is going well so far, and hopefully your vacation was restful at least! I had actually completely forgotten about Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District until I saw an article about it in the Washington Post this morning. I haven't looked too much into its coverage, but it might be worth making an article on that case soon, especially since the SCOTUSblog coverage sounds like they may start to move away from Rowley. If you are interested, there is a substantial list of law review articles at the end of the Rowley article. I'm not familiar with much of the scholarship on this case so a wonderful help would be if you could cull that list to the more significant publications. An even bigger help would be if you wanted to write up anything about them in the article, but I don't want to impose on you (at least not so soon after your vacation, haha). Hopefully we'll have a solid GA candidate in a few weeks!

As an aside, between this case and Robert's use of ASL to admit deaf lawyers to the Supreme Court bar, I've been thinking about creating Deafness at the United States Supreme Court. It's little more than an idea at this point, but any thoughts you have on that would be greatly appreciated. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wugapodes, I'll try to add a section about scholarly coverage at some point during the next week, and I'll also try to trim down the list of articles. Rowley is a very interesting case and I think you've done great work with the article so far. Also, I think a Deafness at the United States Supreme Court article is a fantastic idea. Would it cover SCOTUS cases that have dealt with issues affecting the deaf community (e.g. Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District), or would it focus on the experiences of deaf attorneys, judges, clerks, etc. at the Court? One thing you may want to consider covering are the SCOTUS justices who were deaf or hearing-impaired during their tenure (for more information about that, see footnote 13 at p. 1188 in this fascinating article from the Valparaiso Law Review). For example, President Taft once described Justice David Brewer as "so deaf that he cannot hear." Let me know if there is anything I can do to help with that article's development. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 20 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a recent United States Supreme Court case began when insurance adjusters claimed they were instructed to falsely categorize damages after Hurricane Katrina? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case captions, should it be Mfg. or Manufacturing? Someone changed Mfg to Manufacturing in Dawson Chem and Barber v Leitch. PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• PraeceptorIP, I just double checked my version of the Bluebook (I have the 19th edition with me at the moment). Per R10.2.1(c), in textual sentences, the word "Manufacturing" is not abbreviated. If you were to write the case name in a footnote, then it would be abbreviated "Mfg." per T6, but I see that the editor changed the name as it appears in the body of the article. I should also note that R10.2.1(c) states that the following words are always abbreviated (unless they are the first word in a party's name): "&," "Ass'n," "Bros.," "Co.," "Inc.," "Ltd.," and "No." Therefore, in this case, I believe that the correct title should be "Leitch Manufacturing Co. v. Barber Co." However, I noticed that the article for Leitch Manufacturing Co. v. Barber Company doesn't abbreviate "Co." in the second half of the name. Perhaps we should move that to Leitch Manufacturing Co. v. Barber Co.? In any event, I hope all is well. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Also, FYI, I've been adding the ((WP SCOTUS)) and ((WikiProject Law)) banners to SCOTUS case articles that don't already have them. If a page is tagged with those banners, then the Law and SCOTUS case Wikiprojects will receive notices about those articles in their article alerts pages (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/Article alerts). This is particularly useful when editors nominate SCOTUS articles for deletion or when editors start a request for comments. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Maybe there should be a redirect too? Will you make necessary corrections per your above comments? PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • PraeceptorIP, I moved the Leitch article to Leitch Manufacturing Co. v. Barber Co., and Leitch Manufacturing Co. v. Barber Company is now a redirect that sends readers to the new title. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cd you take a look at the ... issue in User talk:Magioladitis‎ - PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PraeceptorIP, I apologize for never joining that conversation. This last month has been particularly busy for me, so I missed this discussion. If there is another similar discussion in the future, I will be sure to jump in. In any event, I hope all is well. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 24 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bell v. Cone, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one commentator predicted that a 2002 United States Supreme Court ruling would lead to a "dim future" for state prisoners? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bell v. Cone. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A year ago ...

justice
... you were recipient no. 1340 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gerda Arendt, many thanks for your continued kindness. I can always count on you to make Wikipedia a happier place. I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blushing. - Thank you for your contributions to today's Heffernan v. City of Paterson: "This article is about a recent US Supreme Court decision regarding First Amendment protections of public employees. The first amendment protects the rights of public employees, and the Court has previously held that being fired or demoted for political speech or political association is unconstitutional, but in this case, Heffernan was fired not for what he did but what his employer mistakenly thought he did. The Court had to answer whether public employees are protected when their employer bases their decision on factually incorrect information." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two years now, and How lovely to return! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gerda Arendt, thanks so much for the kind message! I hope all is well with you. You always find ways to make Wikipedia more friendly and welcoming. I have been very busy over the last few months, and I haven't had much free time, but I hope to be able to work on a few articles soon! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Four years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Notecardforfree,

I noticed over at WP:RFD that you say you speak Hebrew. Do you read or write Hebrew? I have some problems with text rendering for Hebrew in the software that I write, I can explain more fully but it would be nice to get an expert opinion on whether it is good Hebrew (from just a typographical point of view, not whether it makes any sense, oy vey) and you could help me out there maybe. This is in a sense by way of a commercial offer because it is something I do for paid work, but if you're interested in helping out, I am sure we could arrange a fee and so on. We're not interested in what it says (and this is not Abrahamic texts but modern Hebrew) but none of us knows the alphabet so well to spot obvious flaws which you may be able to do if you can read and write it. I live in Budapest, Hungary, and there are very few Jews or Hebrew speakers around here... a certain German politician put paid to that. Si Trew (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To make clear, I am not Jewish. That is not an apology or defence, just a statement. One cannot reliably calculate how many Jews were evacuated from Hungary, but it was in the millions, far more than from Poland or other countries. This may sound strange, but a synagogue is an odd thing to see in Budapest. They were that thorough. There are two that I know of, but one was built in about 1977 I imagine, in Ujpalota, I go past that a lot, the other in the centre of town somehow managed to escape, perhaps because it was pretty. There are Jewish sections in some cemetaries, but in the National Cemetary it had to be basically rebuilt, and in the others it is always a bit unkepmt, because there are no descendants to look after them. I try to clean them up a bit when I go to the cemetary. It still seems a bit hopeless, planting a flower on a dead man's grave who you never knew. I just hope that one day the family will walk past and say "someone cares for him, who never knew him". Si Trew (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi SimonTrew, thanks for your thoughtful messages. I am interested in discussing this with you further, but I am very busy for the next 5-6 days (Passover is right around the corner). Can we touch base about this on Wednesday or Thursday of next week? I hope all is well. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SimonTrew, are you still in need of assistance? I hope all is well. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well not as such. Or perhaps. We are trying to stick this typography "complex script" it is called in technobabble onto mobile phones. Typography I can do. I know hebrew script (I am not Jewish) and can kinda reverse and do back to right and stuff. I think... perhaps... paid consultant might be the right word to use? I have to be careful here bit you know the satnav company that makes the igo? Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be clear, I am not the paid consultant. You would be. Si Trew (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oy vey. Who was it who was the Jewish comedian who said that joke, the Christians have to spend forty days for Lent. Forty days for Lent. We only have to have five or six. Even at religion you are paying retial (big smile) Si Trew (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And Easter came here too. Much blessings to all and yours. I don't know I do not check user pages and stuff, I was born in the Christian faith because I lived in a Christian country. It sticks to you like chewing-gum on your boots, you will never get rid of it, however hard you try. (Not suggesting you try.) Si Trew (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SimonTrew, thanks for your message. Can you please send me an email regarding this matter? You can use this link to contact me via Wikipedia's email system. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I noticed you have left messages on some of discussions for the changes I recommended. I've been attempting to clean up some of the disambiguation pages for court cases and I probably nominated to change some of these too early. So, your comments and the comments of others motivated me to create articles which I felt were worthy of an article. Regardless of whether my changes are approved or not, I just wanted to say thanks for the comments and support.-- chipermc (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

chipermc, thank you very much for your kind words. I'm glad to see you have an interest in U.S. Supreme Court cases; we are certainly in need of more editors to work on our coverage of legal articles, including articles about SCOTUS cases. I hope that you will continue to contribute! Please let me know if I can be of assistance with respect to the editing process, and I look forward to working with you. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I now have a question you may be able to help answer. I'm having a problem with the Court membership parameter for United States v. Morgan (1941)and I see you have participated in the talk section of the Template talk:Infobox SCOTUS case where there were similar questions. I was attempting to use the |SCOTUS= Feb-Jul 1941 for this case because this is what the Court Composition Key provides. However, I get an error when attempting to add this as the parameter to the article. So, I just used the 1940-1941 date and put McReynolds as notparticipating. I know this isn't correct, but I couldn't think of a better solution. Who could help me enter the correct SCOTUS information so it will populate with the correct Court membership? Thanks. chipermc (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

chipermc, I came across the same problem when editing Olsen v. Nebraska. I think placing Justice McReynolds' name in the "not participating" field is the best solution for now. You could also start a post at Template talk:Infobox SCOTUS case to ask for a new court composition key for the period of time between February and July 1941. I don't have the technical expertise to make a new court composition key, though MZMcBride is particularly knowledgeable about these issues and may be able to provide further assistance. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, NCFF! Hope all is well on your end!! I've recently become involved in WP:NPP because I believe it is a worthy project with a high level of importance as it relates to maintaining the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia. As a reviewer, I am occasionally faced with challenges that exceed my area of expertise, so I hope you don't mind my asking for your input regarding Disability Exceptions under Copyright Law. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevermind - looks like it was already handled. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Atsme, I apologize for never responding to this message. Over the last few weeks, I have been swamped by work at my firm so I haven't been able to edit much (or at all). I'm happy to see that the issue was resolved, and I am happy to help again in the future. In any event, I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Notecardforfree. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih^Talk 19:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Many thanks, Alex Shih. I appreciate your prompt response to my request. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your request! Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 19:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Notecardforfree, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Hi Notecardforfree. I stumbled across the discussion (in January-Feb 2017) about the Pre-Islamic page while editing Dar al Athar al Islamiyyah-I didn't see it before it was deleted but your comments struck a chord with me and seem the sensible way ahead. I'm willing to make that page based on your suggestions and what a search turns up. Any input would be appreciated, including political ones. Among all the verbiage of WP, "be bold" is the one thing I most often recall... Best, compadre. DadaNeem (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi DadaNeem, thanks for volunteering to take on this project. I do think that a disambiguation page at that title could be useful for readers. When I was looking for articles (or redirects) that contained the term "pre-Islamic," I primarily relied upon the search box. As you find links, it might also be helpful to re-assess whether the overall organization of "pre-Islamic" articles and redirects should be moved to different titles. To give you one example, I noticed that "Pre islamic hindu and buddhist heritage of afghanistan" and "Pre-Islamic Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Afghanistan" are redirects that send readers to Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Afghanistan, while "Pre-Islamic period of Afghanistan" is a redirect that sends readers to Ancient history of Afghanistan. Perhaps this content (and the redirects) should be consolidated in some way? Also, you may want to include some articles that include sub-sections about "pre-Islamic" topics. See, for example: the "pre-Islam" section at Post-classical history#West Asia and Oriental studies#Pre-Islam. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you have time to help me bring the article above to GA status (again)? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi Cartoon network freak, it is nice to hear from you. I hope all is well. I will take a look at the article over the next few days to see if I can offer any additional feedback. Were you able to contact an expert in Romanian law? I know very little about Romanian law, so I don't know if I will be able to answer all of the questions about this article, but I'll see what I can do. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I know you have told me that a couple of times, but I really couldn't find such a person. Maybe we can first identify issues and then search for an expert in Romanian law. Isn't there something like a "question page" on Wikipedia? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Cartoon network freak, you may be thinking of the Teahouse, but the people who answer questions at the Teahouse are not experts, and I doubt that we will find someone who is knowledgeable in Romanian law. Is there an equivalent to WT:LAW at the Romanian Wikipedia? I took another look at the article today. As a general starting place, I think you should begin by answering the questions that are listed at the bottom of Talk:Dec. No. 5946/212/2015/GA1 (the most recent GA review for this article). It is still not clear how the various legal proceedings are related. For example, if prosecutors dropped charges in 2016, why did Prodan receive a seven-month sentence in 2016? Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! Here are the issues of the GA1:

• • • • • If the Constanța judges decided in 2014 not to prosecute the case, why were there any subsequent proceedings, under what auspices, and was this criminal or civil?

According to the official script release, the case was criminal (battery). There is no information about what happened between 2014 and the follow-ups, but the only possibility is that there was an appeal from Stan's side. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • • • • Was the November 2016 judgment a normal follow-up to the December 2015 one, or had there been an appeal?

Now, I don't know what to say about this. According to the script (see bottom), there were three appeals (2 from Stan on 10.03 and 16.03 2016, and 1 from Prodan on 26.02 2016). Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • • • • This article references a number of different cases -- a suit filed by Stan against Prodan, a copyright suit filed by Prodan against Stan in 2014, and a criminal prosecution of Prodan.

I think this point was solved already, wasn't it? Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cartoon network freak, I am very sorry, but I don't speak Romanian, and I am not familiar with the Romanian legal system, so it is difficult for me to understand the information that is included in website that you provided above. For articles like this one, it is particularly important to find individuals who are familiar with the subject matter (this is especially important because the article makes claims about potentially criminal acts committed by living people). If there really are no sources that explain the relationship between the 2014 proceedings and the 2016 proceedings, then you may want to limit the scope of the article so that it only discusses the 2016 proceedings. Alternatively (and this may be a simpler/easier approach), you may want to change the scope of the article so that it only discusses the June 2013 roadside incident and does not focus on the court proceedings. Celebrities are often involved litigation, and even if the same parties sue each other in multiple lawsuits, the cases may not be related. In any event, I encourage you to keep looking for an expert who is familiar with Romanian so that you can clarify some of these issues. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Notecardforfree, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Hello Notecardforfree, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm working on a much needed essay and would very much appreciate your input. You can reply in the Discussion section. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Atsme, thanks so much for inviting me to comment. It looks like a very interesting essay! I'll look through it a little more closely this weekend and offer some feedback. I've been swamped at work and haven't been able to edit as much as I'd like, but I hope to be back here more frequently after things clear up. In any event, I hope all is well, and I hope you enjoyed a fantastic Thanksgiving! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 1 December 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jerry Fodor, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Alex Shih (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Notecardforfree. 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]

Hello Notecardforfree, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: ((subst:NPR invite)). Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Reply[reply]

	Time To Spread A Little HappyHolidayCheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a Happy Holiday Season and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Hello Notecardforfree, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Reply[reply]

...hope you are doing well, Mr. Notecardforfree!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for the message, Atsme! I've been meaning to write to you for a while to say hello. My work life has been extremely busy the last few months so I haven't been able to edit as much as I have in the past. In any event, I hope all is well with you and that you are enjoying a nice start to 2018! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Notecardforfree, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

As someone who has been a party on this topic, I would really appropriate if you would please provide your input on the edit warring United States military occupation by a certain user, especially considering that the previous conversation on the talk page had the consensus to keep the reference to U.S. military occupation codes (as well as on [[talk:User talk:GreenMeansGo#Yo, Shield o' Sham-er]] and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_18#United_States_military_occupation. Thanks!

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

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

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Notecardforfree. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

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

Backlog

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

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

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

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing ((copyvio-revdel)) on a page.

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

Hello Notecardforfree, I'm working on Terry stop and Consent search. Right now I'm doing research and putting some stuff in the Talk pages. I plan on working on this for the next few weeks. The articles, as written, are pretty bad, I would say. So I intend to rewrite them a little at a time. I'd like to invite you to the Talk pages to help me toss some ideas around, if you have the time.

Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Notecardforfree,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

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

Hello, Notecardforfree. 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]

Hello Notecardforfree,

Reviewer of the Year

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

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

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

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

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

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

Training video

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

---

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Notecardforfree,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the ((rough translation)) tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• ((db-blankdraft)) was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

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

---

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

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, given your userbox I thought you might be interested in helping Carl Malamud's case for the public domain, crucial also for Wikisource: https://boingboing.net/2019/04/25/happy-law-day.html . Best regards, Nemo 21:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Notecardforfree,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

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

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

Reliable Sources for NPP

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

Backlog drive coming soon

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

News

• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

• A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
• There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
• What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

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

---

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

Hello Notecardforfree,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

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

QUALITY of REVIEWING

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

Backlog

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

Move to draft

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

Notifying users

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

PERM

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

Other news

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

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

---

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Notecardforfree,

Backlog

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

Coordinator

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

This month's refresher course

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

Deletion tags

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

Paid editing

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

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

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

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

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

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

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Notecardforfree,

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

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 798 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

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

This month's refresher course

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

Tools

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

Reviewer Feedback

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

Second set of eyes

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

Arbitration Committee

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

Community Wish list

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

---

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reviewer of the Year

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

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

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

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

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

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

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

Redirect autopatrol

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

Source Guide Discussion

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

This month's refresher course

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

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

Hello Notecardforfree,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

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

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Notecardforfree,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]