Hello, PopePompus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Messier 87. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 17:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drake Municipal Observatory, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:LeightonTelescopeMountCleaned.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, PopePompus,

Thank you for creating Intermediate Luminosity Optical Transient.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

You might want to slip a project tag onto the talk page?

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|Alexandermcnabb)). Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the email. Novas are not my area of expertise, but as a "layman" I found the article interesting and understandable (sometimes I get lost on the more technical articles). Looking at it from the viewpoint of Wikipedia guidelines, manual of style etc, the article is fine. Well done. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should it have a Novae navbox? On that subject, it is worth checking that these novae are actually listed in the navboxes when you add them. Generally, navboxes don't have redlinks so a new article obviously won't be in there, although many of the constellation navboxes include redlinks in advance for clearly notable objects. Lithopsian (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, PopePompus

Thank you for creating WY Sagittae.

User:Celestina007, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good job!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|Celestina007)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

@Celestina007: Thanks very much for the kind comments, and for looking at my new article so quickly! I'm trying to make sure that every nova that was visible to the naked eye has a Wikipedia article. But it gets tricky for some of the really old ones.PopePompus (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Celestina007 (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article. I updated the article with citations including a published magazine and journal reviewing her album releases which also reiterate many of the facts that were already in the article. It would be greatly appreciated if you could review it again. IsaacD (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Isaac, it does indeed look like you've improved the article. Since the tags I put on it have already been removed, there's nothing for me to do at this point. The article has been reviewed, and it's in the main Wikipedia space. As I said yesterday, she seemed notable to me even before the additions you made today. I probably should not have reviewed the page, because I don't have experience reviewing music-related articles. Anyway, I think all's well; thanks for adding this article! Let me know if you think I should be doing something else related to this article. PopePompus (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello PopePompus -- Just a note that I've declined a couple of your A7 speedy requests. Zee Gaurav Puraskar is a television show, which is specifically exempt from A7; additionally it is a long-standing article, which generally should not be speedied unless there is an urgent problem (proposed deletion or AfD is more appropriate). Thiru Vikram is the CEO of a blue-linked company, which is adequate to meet A7. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at your last few deletion requests, I'd also note re Nathaniel Marshall Lucas Sr that it is incorrect to place a BLP prod on an article that has any sources at all, including external links and unreliable sources; further, the version of Khulta kali khulena that you tagged with A1 was sufficiently developed to discern the subject and also had a history with a longer version. I note that you only received new-page reviewer rights recently, I'd suggest that you slow down a bit, read all the voluminous documentation for the various deletion processes, and start out just with very obvious cases. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am indeed new to this, and I may well be screwing up. There are a lot of details especially about notability that I have not absorbed yet. I appreciate you folks catching my errors, and I especially appreciate you taking the time to cite the problems here. I'll try to be more careful.PopePompus (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Scrooge200 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fred Truck and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Fred Truck, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Scrooge200 (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, PopePompus! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Scrooge200 (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PopePompus (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PopePompus (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of novae in 2019, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cygnus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I’m new here. Sorry if I couldn’t add any, I was trying to find out how to add citations with no success. Do you think you can help me? ExplorerKing (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, PopePompus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Fred Truck, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fred Truck, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please quit deleting census estimate fields from community articles! Instead, please remove the data from the right side of the "=".

<!-- Population -->

|population_footnotes = (2020 ref)

|population_as_of = (2020 info)

|population_total = (2020 info)

|pop_est_footnotes = (blank this side)

|pop_est_as_of = (blank this side)

|population_est = (blank this side)

|population_density_sq_mi = (2020 info or "auto")

|population_density_sq_km2 = (2020 info or "auto")

Also, I noticed that you didn't cleanup the "pop_est_footnotes" field in some of your edits too...

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alvord,_Iowa&type=revision&diff=1041139692&oldid=996379846&diffmode=source

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello PopePompus,

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi PopePompus, I see that you've been making lots of edits to the populaion of the cities of Iowa according to the 2020 census. I just want to tell you to KEEP IT UP! I like to deal with population density (and I'm a Nebraskan by the way) so if you could keep on putting accurate populations so I can put in the population density. You revised my population density at Panorama Park, Iowa and since then most of the Iowa Cities that Ive tried to edit have already been edited by you. Keep up the good work! From, Bhawbh

Hi PopePompus. I've unreview a page you've curated, Frédéric Miclotte. I can think of very few instances where it's acceptable to mark a BLP with no sources as reviewed. You should either add sources if they are easily accessible, or—as I've done in this case—tag for deletion per WP:BLPPROD. Thanks – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lord Bolingbroke: Yes, you're exactly right. I almost tagged that page for a speedy del, but decided that the page's creator might add more content. I did intend to mark it as unreviewed after posting tags on it, but I forgot to do so. Thanks for catching my error.PopePompus (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, makes sense. Yeah, a speedy may have been reasonable, but a BLPPROD is probably the best option in this case so the creator has an opportunity to expand the article. They've mass created a bunch of these unsourced rally driver stubs, so we'll see if they actually get around to it. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello PopePompus,

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

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

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 794 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 869 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

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

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

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

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

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Angry black woman: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Hi! Thanks for keeping Wikipedia clean :) However, I saw that you didn't warn the users. I don't know if maybe I was too fast, but in case you didn't know (although I am quite sure you probably know) you can easily give warnings using Twinkle, which I have seen you are using. Have a nice day AdrianHObradors (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I may not be understanding the big picture, but I have not been issuing warnings or putting things on the userpages of vandals who don't create accounts, and merely show up as IP addresses. My reasoning is basically "Don't feed the trolls." These are obviously bad-faith edits, and I think it is preferable to have such edits just disappear as quickly as possible, rather than doing anything that might indicate to the troll that he is successfully bothering someone. But if you disagree, I'd be interested in hearing why. I'm a pretty unsophisticated Wikipedia editor, and I make a lot of mistakes.PopePompus (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Sure, of course. Template warnings are not only to tell problematic editors to stop what they are doing and what exactly they are doing wrong, but also helps other editors and semi-automatic tools know the "bad" activity of an account. And if many problematic edits follow, an IP can be reported and banned. But it is necessary that they are warned beforehand that they can get banned if they keep doing it. I see you're using Twinkle, if you click "[vandalism]", it should open the user's talk page for you, and you can quickly give them a warning from the menu. Other tools like WP:UV let you do it without even leaving the page. AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Thank you for all the excellent light curves that you provide ExoQuest 02:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much!!! It's very nice of you to have taken notice of them. PopePompus (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you using some tool to generate citations that include urls? Particularly urls to NASA ADS pages? These seem to be showing up all over the place and are just asking to linkrot. Citations using the template almost always already have a link to the publisher page via doi and a link to the NASA ADS page via the bibcode, and often a link to a preprint via arXiv (and possibly others such as s2cid, ISSN, etc.). Any explicit url field is superfluous in 99% of cases. If desired, the title of free-to-read papers can be linked by adding a doi-access=free field (or bibcode-access, jstor-access, etc.). If a standard tool is generating these citations, I'll go and have a rant at the maintainer. Lithopsian (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'll use the publisher's URL whenever it is available. I've just been using the Templates-> cite journal option, and filling in all the fields that I can. I didn't realize NASA ADS was considered ephemeral. PopePompus (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NASA ADS isn't exactly ephemeral, but the exact url for papers could change and has changed in the past. We have a bibcode field that can always be tweaked to match without having to edit every star article. Similarly, the doi links to the publisher paper and the url of the publisher paper should very rarely need to be included since they can and do change quite regularly (over years, not every week). Just occasionally, there is no free-to-read version of a paper at either the arxiv, bibcode, doi, or other standard identifiers, but there is a (legal) free-to-read version elsewhere, that's the only case where url is needed in a cite journal template. You might like to add Citation bot to your toolbar or menu, or use it from its own page. It will fill in all the fields for almost any cite journal template, and a few other similar ones, from any unique identifier like a bibcode, doi, etc., and correct most obvious errors in existing templates. Very convenient, although it is sometimes down. Lithopsian (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi PopePompus, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the vote of confidence! I'll try not to screw up. PopePompus (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello PopePompus,

Backlog status

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

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

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

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

Backlog drive

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

TIP – New school articles

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

Misc

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

High unreviewed pages backlog: 7613 articles, as of 14:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

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

Reminders

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

Thank you for catching this and I apologize. My account was accessed without my permission and this action was performed. My account, however, is secure and this behavior will not occur from my account again. Again, my apologies. Beschutzer42 (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello PopePompus,

Backlog status

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

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

Coordination

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

Open letter to the WMF

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

TIP - Reviewing by subject

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

New reviewers

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

Reminders

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

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

Hi PopePompus,

Invitation

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

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

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

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

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

Hello PopePompus,

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

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

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

Suggestions:

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

Backlog:

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

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello PopePompus,

Backlog

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

2022 Awards

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

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

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

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

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

Reminders

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

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

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

Hello PopePompus,

Backlog

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reminders

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

Hello PopePompus,

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

Reminders:

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

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

What software do you use to plot light curves, like the ones you've added at various articles on the English and French Wikipedias? I presume you use Matplotlib, as the style of the graphs is very similar to typical SVG outputs from Matplotlib. I seek to add my own plot to HD 27563 (EM Eridani) based on the uvby data from Table XV of Mathys et al. (1986). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually I use the open source program gimp. I must confess my setup is a mess. The light curves are made by Python scripts which use a Python API for gimp (called gimpfu). However, the last time I checked, the gimp Python API did not survive the transition from Python 2 to Python 3. This may have been fixed by now, but there was a long period of time when the world's transition to Python 3 was nearly complete and gimp's API no longer worked. There were work-arounds discussed online, but I couldn't get any of them to work smoothly. So I have a VirtualBox VM running an old version of Ubuntu and an old version of gimp (version 2.8), and Python 2.7, which I use to make the light curves. It's a terrible kludge, but it works. I have several different Python scripts which will produce single panel plots with vastly different time total time ranges, and scripts which produce two, three or four panel plots, etc. The scripts are *very* ugly, but it doesn't matter much because what is being done - drawing a simple graph - doesn't involve subtle programming. The scripts are festooned which little kludgy bits of code that I turn on or off to do things like plot inset plots within the larger plot.

I've been trying to make sure that every variable star article has a light curve. I have not replaced any light curves that were made by other people, but I've added 1379 light curves to English Wikipedia articles that had no pre-existing light curve. There are about 100 stars for which I would like to make a light curve, but for which I have not found usable data. In any event, I believe the vast majority of English Wikipedia articles about variable stars now have light curves.

I would be very happy to make a plot for EM Eridani using the Mathys data you found (and I had missed). I would also be very happy to give you my Python scripts and VM if you want to use them to make the plot using my code - but be warned, the code's a mess. I would also be very happy to see you add a plot to the article that you made without my software, using Matplotlib or something else. I'm just glad to see that someone else wants the variable star articles to have light curves! Please let me know what you decide.

I didn't use Matplotlib, which of course is the obvious choice for Python, because I found it to be too "high level" to easily allow precise control of the plot at the individual pixel level. I'm sure someone who really knows Matplotlib well could plot anything he or she wants, but I found that gimp's much lower level API made it easier to exactly control what was plotted, down to the last pixel. PopePompus (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would not be able to use Python 2 (I think), so I'll be better off writing my own script using matplotlib. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello PopePompus, hope you're doing well :)

While editing an article on the french Wikipedia, I noticed that there is a small problem on the light curve of R CrA. It looks like the data is from the ASAS project, but the y axis says "TESS visual magnitude" and the R Coronae Australis article also says it's TESS data. The data itself is from 2007-2008, so while editing I supposed it was really from ASAS. Thanks, Romuald 2 (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Romuald, Thanks for catching this. It does indeed look like ASAS data. However, when I plot the ASAS data, it doesn't match what is shown on that plot. So I've removed the plot from the R CrA article. I'll try to figure out what's wrong, and will produce a revised plot. Thanks again! PopePompus (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for investigating this, I've also removed the plot from the french article for now. Romuald 2 (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, it is regarding recreation of Prabhakar Chaudhary which was deleted in December 2020, after AfD filed by you. The current deesn't seem any better. Have a look. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I created my own Python script for plotting light curves after a previous discussion, but I am not ready to share it, as I have not tested multi-band plotting. However, a visual-band light curve created using an in-development version has been added for MT Pegasi. This script uses Matplotlib and Numpy, and can create SVG as well as PNG files. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good job! The MT Pegasi plot looks very nice. Using Matplotlib is clearly a better idea than using an obsolete version of gimp, which is what I have been doing. PopePompus (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello PopePompus,

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

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

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

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

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

Reminders:

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

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

Hello PopePompus:

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

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

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

There is a backlog of over 1500 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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