Hi ToThAc! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Farm to Market Road 677 has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Farm to Market Road 677 was changed by ToThAc (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.957678 on 2017-03-26T17:12:47+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Please stop changing speedy deletion tags, because your edits are not helpful. All three of the tags you just changed had additional information in them, information that is valuable for the admins who delete the pages, but that you removed. Thank you. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Interstate 24 in Illinois, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. L3X1 (distant write) 02:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Achilles Radial. The article was not overtly promotional, and made a credible assertion of notability as "one of the largest tire manufacturers in Indonesia." If you feel the article needs to be deleted, please take it to AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The default sort key is "US008", but you've been overriding that. The default is correct because sort keys sort alphabetically, not numerically. For example, if we just used "U.S. Route 8" as the sort key, it would come after "U.S. Route 61" because when you work alphabetically, the sorting algorithm see the "U.S. Route " part as the same, and when it looks at the next character to break the tie, the "6" comes before the "8". However, if we use "US008" and "US061" as sort keys, after looking at the "US0", the next character would be either a "0" or a "6", giving the tiebreaker to "US008" over "US061". Imzadi 1979 → 14:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take a look at this edit for a better way to do what you're doing. The DEFAULTSORT was set to "91" so that the "Interstate Highways in <state>" categories didn't have to have that sort key set, however, if you changed the DEFAULTSORT to "Interstate 91" and manually applied the "91" key to those three categories, you wouldn't have had to change so much, and any additional categories added will sort by "Interstate 91" in the future unless a key is specifically added. In short, it's better the way I did it over the way you're doing it. Imzadi 1979 → 00:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! That really helps! ToThAc (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Normally, people reply wherever the conversation is started, no need to split things up. Most editors watchlist talk pages where they've commented, so they'll see your reply here. Imzadi 1979 → 00:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hate sounding WP:OWNy with this article, but I'll feel better if I write it. I take a little pride in doing it right the first time, so I don't want to rush it to the article space. –Fredddie™ 01:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Uw-editfilter4im, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Template-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 10:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure why you made this edit. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

U.S. Route 70 in New Mexico, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

U.S. Route 160 in Colorado, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, ToThAc. I just wanted to point out to you that it is not required of you to close the discussion threads at WP:FFD. We have AnomieBOT, which will come do so about an hour or two after deletion has taken place. No need to give yourself an unnecessary workload! ℯxplicit 01:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, thanks very much. ToThAc (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I declined the G4 speedy deletion of Ze'ev Kesley. Based on the article history, Ze'ev Kesley is a fictional character in The Lunar Chronicles, so the redirect is somewhat plausible. I've tagged it with ((R from character)) to make that clear. If you still think it's not a useful redirect, you can bring it to WP:RFD. Thanks. clpo13_(talk) 17:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please could you give me some pointers on how to improve this page? You mention that there is a single source but there are in fact more than 10 independent sources not affiliated with Greenwich Dance.

Also, you mention there's no proof of GNG, but Greenwich Dance is referred to on several other Wikipedia pages (see my other edits) and is a major dance company in London.

Any advice gratefully received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verity.todd (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the advice - as a start, I have removed all non third-party sources and have definitely made sure it's not an orphan. Will keep editing to take in all of your points. Verity.todd (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the assistance on the I'm Empire page. I was conflicted, but if the articles are the same, so be it. You have decided the issue. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

U.S. Route 63 in Missouri, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

–Fredddie™ 23:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right in that it's lacking sources, but there are a lot of USRD articles in far worse shape. But on the note of finding sources, you should request newspaper database access at WP:TWL. –Fredddie™ 23:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello ToThAc Heteropoda sumatrana, and I can't expand it If article it's short please add a stub and how you can see I can't find a photo, get example, this article was accepted and it's similar with my article Pardosa ludia Builder8360 (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks you for understanding and accepting my article, be carefully next time with AFC submissions :) Builder8360 (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ToThAc - Thank you for looking at the AFC for Software Toolworks. You suggested that I edit the Mindscape article to insert this material. I have a COI in that I was the founder, a board member and employee of Software Toolworks. Is it proper for me to edit the Mindscape article myself? Bilofsky (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion to ask for help on Mindscape talk.

Is it your judgment that the substance of the article is worthwhile?

(Should I be answering you on my talk page or here? Apologies for being a noob.) Bilofsky (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Henne3 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Berlin GAA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't quite understand why the draft was denied this time. You recommended finding more "major sources", but the sites in "References" are among the biggest sports websites in Ireland and for them to take an interest in a Gaelic club abroad is remarkable. The articles on the subject go way beyond simple mentions, but feature in-depth portrayal of the club and its members. Our features on German TV and radio unfortunately have no permanent links. There are similar articles on the wiki already with fewer and weaker references.

Henne3 (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll follow your advice and begin to add my citations to the existing article Arlene Gottfried.-- Mitzi.humphrey 18:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from U.S. Route 85 into Draft:U.S. Route 85 in Colorado). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question, did you copy the Kentucky junction list from Talk:U.S. Route 460 into the draft? I'm not mad or anything like that, I just want to make sure so we can properly follow the terms of the CC-BY-SA license, which requires attribution. –Fredddie™ 05:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 128.176.228.207 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Frank Jotzo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Our article has been rejected three times even though, from our point of view, we respected all criteria. The first rejection claimed a lack of independent sources so we added newspaper articles stating Frank Jotzo's position as an environmental economist. These articles are, e.g., from the Washington Post and NY times. Frank Jotzo's research and advisory work is proven by publications from well-known international institutions totally independent of Frank Jotzo (IPCC, Garnaut Review and so on). These sources also show his notable impact in research. Other comparable Wikipedia entries have by far less independent sources (e.g. Cameron Hepburn which was the role model for our entry). If you have concerns about certain paragraphs please let us know but the sources in general are not merely news outlets. They all proof Frank Jotzo's achievements from an independent point of view.

• Giznej (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Multi-objective linear programming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I agree that the article should be extended, for instance be sections like "Duality" and "Applications" (and I intend to contribute here later). However, I think that "Multi-objective linear programming" should not be just a subsection of "Multi-objective Optimization". For instance, there is an article about "Mathematical Optimization" but there are also very detailed articles about important subclasses like "Linear Programming" or "Quadratic Programming". The theory about the linear case is very rich and should be explained in a separate article.

Thanks for reviewing - we appear to be going around in circles with this one - and thought we were almost done when the feedback was that the references were in the wrong order - we have followed the major feedback and added many external references and sources. Could you take another look please? Thanks for your help Mfrancis49 (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Michael FrancisReply[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Multicultural Music Fellowship. Could you take another look- I think I removed what is deemed as informal. More thoughts would be appreciated as I try to get this approved.

Thanks! 375mon (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 147.140.233.30 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ady Hershcovitch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you please clarify which areas of the article need to be edited to meet the minimum standard of references? Despite multiple resubmissions, the reviewers do not state specific examples, but rather keep posting the same generic message. It is difficult for the authors of this page to understand exactly why this article continues to get declined without further details provided. We would like to write this page to be in line with wiki's high standards but find it challenging with the lack of feedback on each review.

Can you please clarify which areas of the article need to be edited to meet the minimum standard of references? Despite multiple resubmissions, the reviewers do not state specific examples, but rather keep posting the same generic message. It is difficult for the authors of this page to understand exactly why this article continues to get declined without further details provided. We would like to write this page to be in line with wiki's high standards but find it challenging with the lack of feedback on each review.

Just as a note (and yes, I'm a month late, but no one else seems to have commented on it), when you are reviewing drafts MOS or ELINK violations are not suitable reasons to decline a draft. 99% of the time the standard decline reasons will be acceptable. Primefac (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Oh, okay, thanks. ToThAc (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure if you rescued the list or just edited it but either way I wanted to say thanks for your input. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 12:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi ToThAc,

I can see you are new to Wikipedia and are still finding your feet (as confirmed by numerous posts on a on your talk page, not least those regarding AFC).

You rejected the AFC:International Board Game Studies Association because the "references do not adequately show the subject's notability".

However, if you look at the talk page for the International Board Game Studies Association AFC, you will see that a considerable number of sources been added since the submission was originally rejected on the grounds that "one source don't establish notability".

Further, the General Notability Guidelines acknowledge that sources will "vary in quality and depth of coverage [and] multiple sources are generally expected".

Moreover, on Depth of Coverage, the General Notability Guidelines state "if the depth of coverage is not substantial then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability"

The article is currently supported by ten references, ranging in time from 2007 to 2017.

If you could find the time to look at the article again, and also review the article's talk page, I would, indeed, be grateful.

Draft_talk:International_Board_Game_Studies_Association

Thanks.

82.30.20.170 (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like there is no good reason to eliminate it... so, why are you trying to? Famartin (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2017 (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 Primefac was:

We already have ((unblocked)) and ((unblock reviewed)), the latter of which isn't a perfect way to reply but works. The other option would be simply commenting out the unblock request. In other words, I don't think we need this template.

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:Template:Unblock procedural and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Axel90Lenny90 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gancher & Ruin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I would like to know what exactly should I add to it to get approved. I think I've added all the sources. Could you please let me know what am I still wrong at?

Thank you

Actually it does extend into the county per https://www.google.com/maps/place/Roanoke,+VA/@37.2743013,-80.0275821,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x884d0c4d6aa966fd:0x249dbecbdbb0989b!8m2!3d37.2709704!4d-79.9414266 Famartin (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Template:Unblock procedural. Thanks! ToThAc (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Spsand reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: ). jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

U.S. Route 85 in Colorado, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assessed the article at only Start-Class, not C-Class even though it has all of the Big Three. The history section is too incomplete to be counted for that assessment metric. At the very least, the date or year of creation needs to be added, but frankly some semblance of a historical narrative is needed. As for the junction list, whole segments are missing with "see also" type links directing readers to fill in the blanks elsewhere. That's not really a good practice to deal with concurrencies, and it should be totally avoided. Imzadi 1979 → 06:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should also note that the route description is quite short of a highway of this length. I'd expect to see it much more developed before promotion to B-Class. Imzadi 1979 → 06:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Start class is totally fine with me. ToThAc (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I came across this article at WP:TH. You declined the submission, giving poor tone as the reason. It is difficult to know exactly what your issues are, so maybe you could leave a comment on the draft, explaining exactly what you would like to be done to improve the article. I am not telling you to do so, but it will help in guiding the article's creator in terms of what to do next. It may also be a good idea to spend five minutes on the article yourself, to see if you can fix some of the more obvious issues. This would be of great help to editors involved in the development of the piece. Thank you in advance. –Sb2001 02:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Crypto88mph (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Factom Protocol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

ToThAc,

I've made a number of edits to the "Factom (Protocol)" page, with an eye towards making it sounds less like an advertisement, which was the stated reason for the initial rejection.

I should note that everything in the article is 100% factually accurate; the only opinion in the piece (which is necessarily an opinion) is the sentence "Reception of the Factom Protocol has been widespread and generally positive." While this is not technically "fact," I am convinced that anyone researching the Factom Protocol's media reception would come to the same conclusion.

As a former journalist, I am sensitive to the needs for objectivity in content such as this. I hope you find these edits meet your requirements. If not, please let me know, and I'll make any additional changes needed.

Crypto88mph

• Crypto88mph (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Factom Protocol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe I've addressed the issue given for the previous rejection.

Given the confusion I've had with the reasons for the previous rejections, I would also like to clarify that I am not connected--formally or informally--with Factom. I went to the Live Chat to seek clarification for the previous rejection, and spoke with TheDragonFire, who asked me:

"Are you connected to Factom Inc?"

I responded:

"I'm an investor in their tokens, FCT. But I'm not formally or otherwise connected outside of that. I bought the tokens on an exchange, not from Factom."

TheDragonFire responded:

"Ah, okay, that's not a particularly significant conflict of interest."

The stated reason for the second rejection of this post was:

"Still relies heavily on primary sources.”

I have deleted and/or pared down some of the content associated with primary sources. I have tried to use primary sources exclusively to support claims pertaining to the technical details of the Protocol. The content derived from primary sources makes no claims to the Protocol's quality or notability. If I am mistaken, I would appreciate being directed to the particular passage.

The Wall Street Journal, MIT Technology Review, BBC.com, The Irish Times, Reuters, The Economist, and International Business Times--all of whom have covered the Protocol at length--don’t generally get into the technical details of the Protocol, because that would be inappropriate for their target audience.

However I believe this page needs to cover some of the more important details related to the Protocol. As much as possible, I have tried to rely on secondary sources, but have used the white paper a number of times when the technical details were not covered by the mainstream media.

I could, theoretically, take out more references to how the Protocol works, but I don’t see how this would improve upon the credabilty/notability of the above-mentioned sources, or be of service to Wikipedia’s readers.

I appreciate your effort to safeguard the objectivity of content on Wikipedia, and I hope that the above-mentioned sources provide the required evidence of notability of the Factom Protocol.

If not, there are plenty of more quotes I can add.

Crypto88mph (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you moved the page. Is it possible you can rename it to Lil Pump, as he is better known by that? BAPreme _{(T | C)} 20:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ammay531 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Social Media in Writing Centers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! Thanks for reviewing my article. I was just curious if there was a way I could check whether or not some of the sources I used are considered reliable? I have read the guidelines, but I've heard there are some gray areas and that some blogs might not be considered verifiable. I just want to make sure it doesn't get rejected again since it has a deadline.

Thanks!

Ammay531 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)ammay531Reply[reply]

Ammay531 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will you please stop?? Try waiting ten minutes after people create articles. Twice you've tagged my article and there's been an edit conflict as I'm adding more information which would have been avoided if you'd had the courtesy to wait one minute.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep same comment. If an article is currently being edited (please check its history) you shouldn't be tagging it unless its something urgent (such as a BLP without references). Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 18:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Freeman1856 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:December 1917 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, this is meant to be a main article to December 1917. Please refer to all the other main articles by month as they relate to 1917. The purpose of the main article is to show an exact daily account of the month in a calendar format. If you have further questions, I'm willing to talk live. - Freeman1856 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeman1856 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Freeman1856, I've gone ahead and accepted the draft. Thank you for your submission. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)Reply[reply]

• Ammay531 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Social Media in Writing Centers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello and thanks for reviewing my page a second time. I'm a little confused about the "verifiable sources" thing again, partly because I'm dealing with a topic that is primarily discussed via blog posts. There is no research on this topic aside from a single article published in 2010. Furthermore, all of the blog posts I have included are from university writing center pages and/or people in the field. I'm not really sure if there is a workaround for this, but if I take all of that information out, the post will literally be three lines long and will exclude a lot of (what I consider) important information on the topic. Once again, I appreciate any advice/response you can give me. Thank you in advance.

Ammay531 (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, You may want to read WP:DTTR - Templating an editor who's been here since 2012 isn't a very good idea, personal messages are more preferred, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, ToThAc. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like your enthusiasm to delete unwanted articles, but I was in middle of writing Sarmad Sehbai when you put your tag. I do not have issue with it, because I understand your reason. But you have to give article some time before you start putting tags. I was in middle of writing this article and consequence of your tagging was that I lost my edits. --Spasage (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can add Golduck is my homie to your list. Just had it blocked ten minutes ago. Home Lander (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Template:Unblock procedural, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Template:Unblock procedural and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Template:Unblock procedural during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

==Deprodding of Fórsa==

I have removed the ((proposed deletion/dated)) tag from Fórsa, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add ((proposed deletion)) back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Berrocca Addict (talk)

Hello, ToThAc. 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]

with respect to speedy deletion, nocontext means that one cannot tell what the article is about-- that is not the case with Murga Mahadev First check for sources; then, only if not found, nominate for deletion at AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 22:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for fixing the Ayurveda article. A few hours isn't long at all! I looked at the history, and it was broken for 11 months. 2001:BB6:4703:4A58:30CB:24C8:7EDA:E73 (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kindly asking that the request for speedy deletion you added be removed from Weston Ski Track, not sure why you flagged it as such as it doesn't fit into a deletion criteria.

--GLaDOS (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just discovered that you didn't just start the DRV on this, but you also closed a second AfD on the subject. There's multiple issues here.

1. As I pointed out when I closed the DRV, WP:NAC is only for obvious closes. This clearly was not an open-and-shut issue, so WP:NAC did not apply.
2. When you close an AfD, NAC or not, you're acting in an administrative capacity. One of the prime rules is that administrative actions must be unbiased. If you have an opinion on a discussion, you should not be performing administrative actions related to that discussion. Your procedural close was totally inappropriate. It would have been equally inappropriate even if you were an admin.
3. All administrative actions should be 100% transparent. When you started the DRV, you should have recapped any previous involvement you had with the issue (i.e. your procedural close of the 2nd AfD). To hide that information is just plain wrong.
4. Oh, wait, I just this very moment, after writing all of the above, noticed that you started the 2nd AfD. Again, you need to be striving for transparency. If you wanted to withdraw your AfD, that's fine, but make it obvious that it's your own nomination that you're withdrawing. None of this mysterious procedural NAC stuff. And, given that you started the 2nd AfD, why not just let it run its course? Why confuse things by letting it run for a couple of days then change your mind what forum you want to pursue this in? And, again, at the very least, you should have been upfront about all of your previous actions in the DRV nomination.

At this point, the least confusing and disruptive thing to do would be to just let Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in Canada continue to its conclusion, so that's what I'm going to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, ToThAc, good communication skills is an integral part of AFC project.I may be horribly mistaken but your t/p seem to be full of queries by submitters of declined drafts, who haven't received any detailed talk-back/help from your end, barring one-liners and/or decline-templates in some cases.Remember that, for most of these editors, AFC and its bunch of reviewers will the only side of Wikipedia that would visible to them for a long time.Hence, it may be prudential to help the good-faith-newbies feel more welcomed to our environment.A good-start would be to use more-detailed personalized messages, while replying to your t/p queries.Thank you!Winged Blades^Godric 05:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being a second relist it should have explanation; there's absolutely no need for it - do you really think there hasn't been enough discussion there that it needs more????? I'd suggest reverting it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, paine ellsworth has relisted it, apparently hoping for a consensus by notifying wikiprojects.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi I noticed that you relisted the move request here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jingpo_people#Requested_move_27_December_2017

However it appears that the original requester has go ahead an made the move themselves. As someone with an interest in kachin culture and who has written a few articles on the culture, I am absolutely shocked that this has happened, as it without a doubt completly wrong. There is little evidence (in fact there is no sources presented in the request) that Kachin should be redirected to Jinghpaw. So I think that the user in question has made a unilateral decision, while bold, is incorrect and is not back up by any facts. In fact if you look at the page which is now Kachin peoples you can see sourced refs stating that Jinghpaw is a sub category of Kachin.

This change has moved Kachin people to Kachin peoples, but I can't revert that back because the old kachin people page is now a new redirect page to Jingpo.

Do you know what the procedure is for these requested moves, if the request hasn't been closed by an admin yet. Is it possible to do a revert?Egaoblai (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Egaoblai: Unfortunately, I don't have expertise in the subject and simply relisted it because it was malformed for about a week, therefore there was no participation in general. However, this section might be helpful, as it details the discussion regarding the subject. Cheers. ToThAc (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks, I've seen that discussion and the only person who suggests the move is one person ten years ago and person who made the current move today. as I can't revert this, I think my best option is to request an admin close on the current discussion, which in my mind does not approach a quorum or a consensus needed to move.Egaoblai (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Philacevedo (talk · contribs)
  • User:Philacevedo/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi - I don't understand your comment re the One With Life Organic Tequila article. "The lead is 'very promotional". It seems to be substantially similar to many of the the other tequila's on the list page except that this article has numerous independent sources cited to verify the info. Many more than a significant number of the other articles. Can you explain how the rules are so discriminately applied. Also, some advice on how it should be changed. Philacevedo (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC) philacevedoReply[reply]

Philacevedo (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Philacevedo (talk · contribs)
  • User:Philacevedo/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

follow up on question re review of One With Life Organic Tequila article. pls 4Copas article on list page as an example (also Arette and Avion) Philacevedo (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC) philacevedo Philacevedo (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I cannot make sense of your close of Talk:Winesburg, Ohio (town)#Requested move 10 January 2018, and I think it goes contrary to WP:RMCI#Determining consensus on a number of levels. Everyone in the discussion knew that Winesburg, Ohio is a book, not a town. The disagreement lied whether that should cause the populated place of Winesburg not to follow the WP:USPLACE conventions, where four posters (counting the nominator) thought it should not, and two thought it should, and everyone based their opinion on policy and precedent. I don't think that your close sufficiently addressed the issue to keep the article at the present location. Please consider reopening the discussion. No such user (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I came here to make the same points the above editor did, and discovered them already well-made. The issue under discussion was the fact that the current title of the article misleadingly refers to the unincorporated community as a "town", and presented a way to fix it. The fact that the book is the primary name is accepted by everyone and is not really relevant to the current issue. I agree that it would be best if the discussion were reopened. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd also suggest vacating your close Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ken Gallager, while I appreciate your concern, did you see the previous RM close before you contacted me? ToThAc (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, but it doesn't change my argument. I don't believe that editor knew that there was a problem with the word "town" in the title. I've tried to address that in my proposal. --Ken Gallager (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder that there is no quorum required to make a move - that is, if there is one support and no oppose then you can usually do the move unless you think it would be controversial/the rationale isn't good. Also, shouldn't relist discussions with a lot of participation as those should usually be closed one way or the other/or no consensus. I'd recommend slowing down on the relists and focusing more on closing the discussions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd also recommend re-reading WP:RMCLOSE, especially the portion about determining consensus/when to relist. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also "In general, discussions should not be relisted more than once before properly closing." So don't relist twice unless you really can explain why. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also for example Talk:Vikings_(TV_series)#Requested_move_13_January_2018 didn't need relisting since there was already lots of discussion, and the consensus or lack thereof should be determined instead. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Galobtter: That isn't a good example, as the mentioned RM was actually heavily controversial and no one can agree on what to do. (Additionally, it's only been relisted once.) ToThAc (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisting once is the usual max; if no one can agree on what to do, then it is no consensus closure then? Isn't it. (suggest leaving more complicated ones alone until you get some more experience with closures) Relisting more didn't invite more comments, so it is utterly pointless. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

follow up on the following comment re the proposed One With Life Organic Tequila article - Comment: By that I mean that you have to remove terms like "certified organic", "certified kosher", and "100%". With all due respect, I still am not sure I understand. The terms you suggest to be removed are all factual and can be independently sourced. Furthermore, the very same terms are currently utilized in the lead invnumerous other articles of brands in the article "List of Tequilas"

a quick review of these articles (and I only went through the beginning of the letter H reveals the following articles using similar terms. In light of this, please explain why these terms should be removed from the article in question and not from numerous other similar articles?

1800 Tequila - 100% blue agave

1519 Tequila - Certified Organic Tequila by both USDA[1] and "European Union". that also certified KosherPareve[2] by Orthodox Union.

4 Copas - which uses sustainable organic methods. The company also participates in the supporting of Sea Turtle Restoration Project an Organization dedicated to research and support of conservation of Sea Turtles,[2][3]

Arette Tequila is only made from 100% Estate Agave.

Avion - from the Agave grown in the highest elevations.[1] Tequila Avión has won multiple awards in 2011 and 2012 San Francisco World Spirits Competition.

Casa Dragonesis a handcrafted, small batch, luxury tequila producer

casa noble - It is a CCOF certified organic tequila.

Chaya - from 100% Blue Agave

DeLeón Tequila is certified as 100% blue weber agave tequila.

Herradura 100% agave. Philacevedo (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Philacevedo: Seriously, "100%" is promotional and flowery. It makes it sound like it's actually "100%" even though there's some imperfections. I suggest you read WP:PEACOCK before messaging me again. ToThAc (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate the seriousness with which you have undertaken your editing responsibilities, but if you would kindly indulge me by reviewing the following material related to the certification process of Tequila:

Tequila's are subject to a rigorous certification process. The Mexican government has accredited the Tequila Regulatory Council (CRT) with the authority to verify and police the standards and certifications of tequila. The Mexican Official Standard for Tequila is NOM-006-SCFI-1994, Bebidas alcohólicas- Tequila-Especificaciones (NOM).

One of the main provisions of NOM-006-SFI-1994, provides the classifications of tequila's. There are those classified as "100% Agave Tequilas" and those classified as "Tequila".

Those Tequila's meeting the rigorous certifications receive a NOM and are labeled as 100% Agave or 100% Agave Azure. Such classification or labeling is not promotional or flowery, but the result of observance with strict requirements to ensure the integrity of the product. Specifically:

The classification between Tequila 100% Agave, made from 100% agave sap, and Tequila, a category produced with 51% of agave sap and up to 49% other sugars.

see pg 4 of the following for an overview Philacevedo (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Philacevedo (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://www.tequilaspecialist.com/teqconc.pdf

also see

https://www.crt.org.mx/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65&Itemid=370&lang=en

https://www.crt.org.mx/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=140:paso-2&catid=11:crt

https://www.diffordsguide.com/es-mx/beer-wine-spirits/category/509/blanco-tequila-100-agave Philacevedo (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Charlie F. Brown (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Professor Aidan Halligan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I have developed an article on Professor Aidan Halligan which has been rejected twice. It is my first article and I don't understand what I need to do to bring the article in line with your standards, particularly around the references. Could you provide more advice? Thanks Charlie Charlie F. Brown (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate your comment about my new page submission. It is my goal to remain neutral and be a good wikipedian ;-). Johnnyeallee (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ToThAc, thank you for your interest in the GAN process. For future reference, when you are thinking about nominating an article for GA that you haven't made a significant contribution to, as in DuckTales: Remastered, the GAN instructions say that you need to consult on the article's talk page to see whether people think that it needs more work (or conversely, that it's ready to be nominated).

As you can see by what happened today, the reaction may be that it is not ready, and it is not uncommon in such a situation, if the nomination has been made without consultation by an editor not significantly involved in the article, that it is reverted on the spot. You may wish to review the GA criteria to see what is expected of nominated articles, whether your own or the product of other editors, and why in this case the article fell short. Best of luck with any future GA nominations, and remember that if you do make a nomination, you are effectively making a commitment to address any issues that may arise in the course of the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your note that you posted on my talk page. Admin looks like a huge responsibility, so if there's some intermediate step with privileges that would help the RFD team, I could ease into that role first? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please provide evidence that the codename for the new lands is called "Marvel Superhero Universe"Marth The Hero King (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Marth The Hero KingReply[reply]

Ok I improved the The_Masses_(Collective) article with references, will keep improving. Jon Phillips (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the New Page Reviewer flag. Can you please head over to PERM and request it? Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application.
As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag.
Of course, if NPP is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at the NPP tutorial.

Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello ToThAc. 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kudpung: Thanks. Please feel free to contact me should any noteworthy concerns arise. ToThAc (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello ToThAc,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged AbcTestWarrior for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Edaham (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Mks1 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tiananmen’s 21 Most Wanted List (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi I was just wondering what in particular in the submission that made it sound like an essay and what you think I can fix? Mks1 (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, just letting you know I changed your speedy deletion of Cal Baptist Lancers men's basketball (and the corresponding women's basketball article) to redirect to the existing California Baptist Lancers article. The A7 seemed reasonable though I'm not sure quite why you put an A1 template – there was definitely enough context to identify that it was an article about a university sports team. Thanks, Appable (talk | contributions) 18:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Jsaradadevi (talk · contribs)
  • User:Jsaradadevi/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you please let me know, what is looking like promotional content in the article. Trying to understand Jsaradadevi (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for reviewing OpenRiichi, ToThAc.

Unfortunately LynxTufts has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Resetting review status as CSD template was removed.

To reply, leave a comment on LynxTufts's talk page.

LynxTufts (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello ToThAc. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of U.S. Route 85B, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There has been considerable dispute, as to the title, per the history of the redirect-page.So, please initiate a request for move. Thank you. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hillato (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dr. Barr. Umar Mantu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article was rejected and the reviewer did not give any reason why. I find it confusing that I am not accorded the dignity of knowing why my article was rejected. Thanks

Hillato (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hillato (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dr. Barr. Umar Mantu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please can fairly tell me why you consider the publication of an individual profile dedicated to serving humanity a praise singing. All information provided is verifiable fact. I am miffed by your position. If my assumptions are not accurate. Kindly assist in editing article in line with your understanding of a neutral position. Thank you. Hillato (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hillato (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dr. Barr. Umar Mantu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please I need help renaming the article title from "Dr. Barr. Umar Mantu" to "Umar Mantu" I read through the article you cited and I believe I breached the rules by adding all the subject's professional titles to his name on the page title. Thank you.

Hillato (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Chuckage (talk · contribs)
  • User:Chuckage/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Because it is abundantly evident that no one looked at my reference. Chuckage (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Mariormendoza (talk · contribs)
  • User:Mariormendoza/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for the review and suggestions. I edited the material as you suggested. Please let me know if the changes are satisfactory.

Thank you Mariormendoza (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you made a mistake at WP:AFC/R. The HTML entity reference gets converted into a single character that doesn't include #. If &#82​88; actually included the # character, it wouldn't be possible to make a link to the word joiner character; word joiner would take you to the 8288; section of the & article. &#8288 is a blue link, even though there is no 8288 section on that page; because word joiner is a red link, you can tell that it won't take you to the ⁠ section of &. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S., please see this link. It goes to the same place as this link, even though the code is completely different. They're just two different ways of expressing the same piece of code. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I saw your decline of Draft:Jagsara. Are you really saying that it is too difficult to understand what the article is about? It seems plain enough to me. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, when you reviewed the article User:ScylarA/sandbox at AfC, you missed a copyright violation. Natureium (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, could you please indicate which paragraph should be reviewed or which key words should be deleted/replaced in order for me to improve our article? Precise and specific feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks.Elise.carreau (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, I have reviewed the document and submitted the updated draft. Let me know if the article is now ok for publication, thanks. Elise.carreau (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Derbachelor (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Iba - University of Cooperative Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello thanks for reviewing my article, sorry its my first that I created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Iba_-_University_of_Cooperative_Education

I already tried to use as much neutral sources as possible, what do you think is the main point that seems to be advertisment, i will delete it.

Thanks

Derbachelor (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Bsorenson2 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Bsorenson2/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I am not sure how to submit the identical article, can you help me

bs2

Bsorenson2 (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Nimsratna (talk · contribs)
  • User:Nimsratna/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nimsratna (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Treargy (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Camden Highline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've made changes to the tense of the article to address suggestions. Thank you.

Treargy (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• T2edgedsword (talk · contribs)
  • User:T2edgedsword/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I am trying to determine whether or not this figure is notable and worthy of a Wikipedia page. I know this is largely determined by whether or not I am able to find suitable sources. Could you possibly give me some examples of what are suitable and independent sources? T2edgedsword (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 94.75.117.17 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Cldt/sandbox/Data Management Platform (DMP) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

94.75.117.17 (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi!

I am wrting to you to make sure what is wrong with Data Management Platform wiki site :)

Basically you ask us to just delete any references to original sources (OnAudience, Lotame & Eyeota) and focus only on in sources on newspapers like forbes, martech etc.?

• Divilibil (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Angie Gray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Divilibil (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi , Thanks for your information. I'm trying to erase the blank URLs- because they really are the actual quote,already referenced , but in Spanish. So I'm trying to delete them but the template seems to be different than last time I used it.

And the the (1) footnote should be this (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0336448/)

Could yopu lease help me?

Thanks again.

• Erchongyee (talk · contribs)
  • User:Alexctlee/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am sorry we are quite new to this hence do not know how to get it right correctly at the first place. I have copied the content of this sandbox article to the draft titled Internet 2.0. How do I know whether it had done correctly? Erchongyee (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Dimahagever (talk · contribs)
  • User:Dimahagever/sandbox/Operation UNIFIER (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Recently i submitted an article to wikipedia,based on the official site of the government of Canada.Yet you have declined it from the reason that i based it on only one Source material without even reading it and comparing it to the source. I would like you to renew the article,as it is based on official source (the site mentioned), and an unofficial (wikipedia page of the Crisis in Ukraine)

Dimahagever (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there,

I was looking through draftspace when I found the above page. I see you created it a while back. Are you likely to come back to it in the near future? Some wikipedians (like myself) dislike having pages sit in the Draft namespace without any improvements being done on them. It appears there isn't a whole lot of interest in this page. Would you be open to bringing it to your Userspace? Would you be open to having it reviewed by an experienced editor who can tell you what is necessary in order for it to be promoted to mainspace? If neither of these options works for you we might be forced to go about deleting the work as the Draft space is intended for active development of future Wikipedia articles. Hasteur (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm Akhiljaxxn. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Worth It ( Youtube Program ), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Akhiljaxxn (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Muhammad Abaidullah (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Fallen Planet Studios has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails notability guidelines at WP:COMPANY. Some of their projects may be notable but that doesn't translate into notability for the company (WP:INHERITORG).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ifnord (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fallen Planet Studios is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fallen Planet Studios until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your previous assistance about ARC: Inter-Korean House of Freedom. I created another article: Draft:Peace Treaty on Korean Peninsula. Please review the article and let me know whether there is any improvement of the article contents or reference if possible. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was wondering why it take more time for reviewing this topic as Inter-Korean House of Freedom was accepted quickly. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:46, 11 August 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. (Purge)

Hello ToThAc, 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. In a recent edit to the page The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:25, 28 August 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 ToThAc, 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]

Template:Uw-editfilter4im has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bsherr (talk) 13:34, 16 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 ToThAc,

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, ToThAc. 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]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:ToThAc/U.S. Route 460 in Kentucky. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello ToThAc,

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]

Hi, please be advised that there is a proposal to move the Nantucket article back to "Nantucket, Massachusetts" at Talk:Nantucket#Requested move 7 January 2019. Note that the current name was determined by consensus a year ago at Talk:Nantucket#Requested move 6 January 2018. HopsonRoad (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:ToThAc/U.S. Route 460 in Kentucky. Thanks! Otr500 (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:ToThAc/U.S. Route 460 in Kentucky. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello ToThAc,

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 ToThAc,

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 ToThAc,

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]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Batwoman(U.S. TV series). Since you had some involvement with the Batwoman(U.S. TV series) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Gonnym (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, ToThAc. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of Shantae characters".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (📧) 16:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello ToThAc,

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]

Hi ToThAc

Please re-open Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:H. P. Lovecraft (4th nomination). Your closure does not meet WP:SKCRIT #1, because someone other than the nom had voted delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl:  Done. ToThAc (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to have been the nitpicker, but I think that SKC#1 is an important bit of procedure.

Thanks for re-opening it with such good grace. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

I made this template as an abstraction to replace the primitive coding in Traffic-sign recognition.

As such, it is possible to have it as a standard template that can be used across automotive pages.

It makes it easy to highlight environmental friendliness approximately. 217.162.112.133 (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited U.S. Route 290, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington County Railroad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey ToThAc, I wanted to propose an idea to you about how we should handle games in a series where the first game's title is the same as the series' title. My full reasoning is on that page under "Watch Dogs 1". I wanted to get your opinion on the matter, because the logic that I proposed would probably translate to "New Super Mario Bros. 1", as the title of "New Super Mario Bros." could POTENTIALLY refer to the new generation of Mario games on the modern Nintendo consoles, even if it doesn't in actuality. It's just a thought, and this example is probably fits my reasoning the loosest, but the redirect could potentially have merit. Besides this redirect, take a look at what I proposed, because I wanted to get some other input.

Now, this doesn't mean that we can slap a "1" onto anything and call it a redirect. "The Crew" and "Watch Dogs" were both plausible as their series' shared the same name as the first game, and it could be confusing to those who didn't know where their target article was, and used a "1" to specify. Utopes (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ToThAc: I hope this gets to you. Thanks so much!Rocordman (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited U.S. Route 183 in Texas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guadalupe River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a quicker way to make "Wikipedia:Map data/Wikipedia KML/New York State Route 7" or is the only way to add brackets to each coordinate one-by-one? Thanks 420Traveler (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi ToThAc, I see you moved Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Portal:Berlin to Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Berlin. This seems to have broken all the main links. Would you please either move it back or fix the links so that we can use it as a project tool. FWIW it is still a 'portal' for project editors to view, access and improve articles and coverage, even though it's not in portalspace, so there's no need to move it anyway. And just calling it "Germany" could confuse people. But essentially we need to fix it so it's usable. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bermicourt, I moved the page back so it works again, it seems easier than changing all the links and we might use Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Berlin for some task force or similar in the future. ToThAc: The name of the page isn't terribly important at this point, but breaking it because you don't like the name is not OK. —Kusma (t·c) 15:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Of course the page name could change in the future, but until things settle and we agree how to use them; it's best to leave it working so it can be used to improve topic coverage. Bermicourt (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi ToThAc, and thanks for starting the VG Chartz RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard. Currently, your RfC statement is a bit too long to be properly transcluded into the RfC category lists. The statement should be neutral and brief, and it's generally a good idea to move your arguments into the discussion section if you have more to say. Could you please shorten your RfC statement? — Newslinger talk 03:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for making the adjustment! — Newslinger talk 03:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't feel it is my place to post in the peer review section, given you are asking for Fredddie to do that. I've taken a good glance at the article you are asking for help on and it looks pretty good for the most part, but there are a lot of areas of the article where references are missing and the milepost table could be better filled in. I can help with that last part, no problem. As for the missing references, I'm specifically referring to the section where the special and spur routes are detailed. There's no sourcing for the latter part of the route descriptions. You can easily use Google Maps as a source for this if you'd like, or if the info matches up, the TXDOT Statewide Planning Map source I recently introduced. You can also use other map services or atlases that detail those routes too. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 06:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, thanks very much. ToThAc (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thanks for your participation in the September 2019 GA Backlog drive. Your 3 reviews made a difference. The work of editors like you helped bring down the unreviewed backlog by over 35%. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You started an RfC on this topic. Typically when an RfC is ongoing, we leave things alone and wait for the conclusion of the discussion. That way things can be changed once at the end of the process. Please leave the sort keys on U.S. Route 27 in Michigan and any other former highways' transportation-by-county categories at the default until the discussion decides if they need to be changed. Imzadi 1979 → 04:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I've reverted your close at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (plurals). For RfCs such as that, it really needs an uninvolved administrator to close; in the case of a two year old discussion that fizzled out (and where one participant is sadly known to have died since) a close out of the blue is not really appropriate. As your attempts to move the pages have been challenged by both me and RHaworth (I didn't know about the discussion and I suspect he didn't either), I think we need either an admin close or a new thread. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited METRORail Red Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preston station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello ToThAc,

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 793 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]

Hi ToThAc: I noticed your RfC you started at Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines, so I have a couple of requests.

• I am asking for you to please omit my user name from the header of the discussion. I ask this because there are other portals that I am not involved with that also use the newer transclusion templates, but the way it is worded, it sounds as though I am the only one. This unfairly singles me out in an inappropriate manner, serving to label me in a particular fashion. In other words, I'm not the only person using the new templates, but as you have worded the header, it appears that I am to other users. Also, I have not formally proposed this method, and I was not involved in creation of the newer transclusion templates. The way it's worded, it sounds as though if I had.
• Please add your signature at the end of your treatise there. As it sits now, it is unclear who drafted the proposal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Struck part of the above, as you actually did add your signature when devising. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Moxy 🍁 07:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I'm taking it upon myself to try to moderate a discussion among Portal power users with the intention of creating a draft guideline for Portals, and I'd like to invite you to join this discussion. If you're interested, please join the discussion at User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| [confess] || 21:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think your ArbCom case is well intentioned, but a mistake as it is. To put it under the banner of "Civility in portal deletion discussions" is to obscure the root problem which is that portals have clearly failed and editors like NA1K have engaged in dubious conduct or given ridiculous arguments against deletion to prop portals up. Nothing will get resolved by focusing on the niceness or not of the words between BHG and NA1K. Please change the scope to something more encompassing like "Conduct in portal space and portal deletion discussions." Best, Newshunter12 (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:ToThAc - I think that your list of parties is heavy on portal skeptics and short on portal advocates, only including one of them, NA1k. I don't think that it is all that important who are the parties, because the two editors who are most likely to be sanctioned are BHG and NA1k, but I do think that your list is one-sided. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL^{Query me!} 20:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the report. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Could someone take a peek at some of the older sections at WP:RSN? I posted a request for ClueBot III to archive them ASAP since there's been no discussion in those sections for two weeks now and never automatically archived for some reason, and yet still nothing has happened even though I posted that request about a day ago. Why is that, exactly? ToThAc (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that you can tell ClueBot III to archive only a specified section. Thus I also don't think that "0" is a valid age. If it were, you'd have ordered ClueBot to archive everything on RS/N as soon as it's written. If you want only one or two specific sections archived that Lowercase Sigmabot III misses, it's probably easiest to do it manually. Huon (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Huon: That's exactly what happened. ClueBot just archived almost the entire RSN to a new out-of-sequence archive [1]. I've reverted ClueBot and removed the incorrect configuration [2] from the page. -Zanhe (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Barnstar of Reliability
	ToThAc, thank you for patrolling the reliable sources noticeboard, closing elapsed requests for comment, and maintaining the perennial sources list. Your work is greatly appreciated, and we could always use a higher bus factor! — Newslinger talk 23:45, 8 December 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]

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはToThAcたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 04:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Map data/Wikipedia KML/Texas State Highway Loop 375 could use an update for the new Border West Expressway segment. I'd be willing to work on this, if you point me at appropriate tools. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that you tagged Xindl X with ((prod blp)) for proposed deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criteria specified. The placement requirements are (a) that subject is living, and (b) that the article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. Please fully read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people before tagging articles for proposed deletion. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello ToThAc,

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)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 21:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An inexperienced editor placed a speedy deletion tag on an article about a university librarian, and you very properly removed it, because that's a sufficient assertion of importance to prevent speedy A7. That editor restored the tag. As reviewing administrator, I removedt he tag again, and explained things to the other editor. DGG ( talk ) 14:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April–May 2020 GAN Backlog Drive As you have taken part in previous GAN Backlog drives, or are a prolific GAN reviewer, you might be interested to know that the April–May 2020 GAN Backlog Drive starts on April 1, and will continue until the end of May.

Harrias ^talk 06:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article U.S. Route 290 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 SounderBruce -- SounderBruce (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article U.S. Route 290 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:U.S. Route 290 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SounderBruce -- SounderBruce (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi ToThAc, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello ToThAc,

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]

Hey there! I see you removed my addition of Pride.com as marginally reliable source to WP:RSPSOURCES, with the explanation that it isn't ready for inclusion yet. What steps still have to be taken before Pride.com can be listed in the table? Thank you. —Matthew - (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MatthewHoobin: Please see WP:RSPCRITERIA for more info. ToThAc (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ToThAc: I've read WP:RSPCRITERIA. The reliability of Pride.com underwent an RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard (see here), and that discussion involved three editors, including myself. Does it not count because Kaldari did not specifically express their thoughts on whether or not Pride.com should be considered a reliable source? —Matthew - (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MatthewHoobin: Might as well de-archive it and pin it to the noticeboard to solicit more attention from it. Though if it's an RfC, I guess it's fine then. ToThAc (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi MatthewHoobin and ToThAc, to avoid unduly influencing RfC responses, we generally do not include sources on the perennial sources list until they meet the inclusion criteria solely through closed RfCs and archived discussions. Please see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 2 § Sources with a currently active RfC and no previous discussions for the previous discussion on this situation. I've removed the entry on Pride.com until the RfC is closed, and added the RfC to the "Society, sports, and culture" RfC category. — Newslinger talk 12:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no point in closing an AFD as something that you cannot actually do (ie. delete), just let an admin do it instead of making the process more convoluted by NACing an AFD only to tag it with g6. Praxidicae (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi ToThAc. Just to follow up on the above, I have reversed your close of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shubh Tv. In the future, per WP:BADNAC non-admin closures should be limited to outcomes that a non-admin has the technical ability to carry out. In this case, I think it's quite likely that the discussion will be closed as delete, but there's no harm in waiting for another administrator to take a look. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, ToThAc,

Please review Criteria for Speedy Deletion because you are only able to do an author CSD request if you are the page creator. Also, for every deletion tagging (CSD, PROD, AfD, etc.) you must post a notice on the page creator's talk page. If you use Twinkle, this will happen automatically once you set up your preferences. I encourage you to make use of this useful program. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello ToThAc,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

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

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi TTA, last year you filed the portals case, which was a wide-ranging dispute involving dozens of editors, and one of the big preliminary questions was who should be a party to the case. I remember the effort that went into figuring that part of the case out. I'm faced now with a similar situation, contemplating an arbcom filing that would involve a dispute with dozens of editors. Some of them should have their conduct looked at, but I'm not sure who (and of course that's hotly disputed). I don't want to include "innocent" parties and I don't want to miss "guilty" parties, and on top of that I don't want to pre-judge who is "innocent" and who is "guilty" (particularly because it obviously doesn't break down into two neat categories like that). So I was wondering, what did you learn from your experience, and do you have any advice about how to approach figuring out who should be the parties for big multi-party arbcom filings? Like what works/doesn't work? Thanks, Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. The script recently received a significant update, detailed below.

• You can now toggle which icons you do or don't want to see. See the configuration section for details. All icons are enabled by default except for the new generally reliable icon (described below).
• New categorizations/icons:
  • Advocacy: Organizations that are engaged in advocacy (anything from political to civil rights to lobbying). Note that an advocacy group can be reliable; this indicator simply serves to note when a source's primary purpose is to advocate for certain positions or policies, which is important to keep in mind when consuming a source.
  • Editable: Sites that are editable by the public, such as wikis (Wikipedia, Fandom) or some databases (IMDb, Discogs).
  • Predatory journals: These sites charge publication fees to authors without checking articles for quality and legitimacy.
  • Perennial source categories: Cite Unseen will mark sources as generally reliable, marginally reliable, generally unreliable, deprecated, and blacklisted. This is based on Wikipedia's perennial sources list, which reflects community consensus on frequently discussed sources. Sources that have multiple categorizations are marked as varied reliability. Note that generally reliable icons are disabled by default to reduce clutter, but you can enable them through your custom config. A special thanks to Newslinger, whose new Sourceror API provides the perennial sources list in a clean, structured format.
• With the addition of the new categorizations, the biased source icon has been removed. This category was very broad, and repetitive to the new advocacy and perennial sources categorizations that are more informative.

If you have any feedback, requested features, or domains to add/remove, don't hesitate to bring it up on the script's talk page. Thank you! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are receiving this message as a user of Cite Unseen. If you no longer wish to receive very occasional updates, you may remove yourself from the mailing list.