Jump to content

User talk:Mortee: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tag: MassMessage delivery
No edit summary
Tag: Reverted
Line 1: Line 1:
My name is Duncan Reynolds.

{{Archive box|search=yes|
{{Archive box|search=yes|
* [[/Archive 1|2016–2017]]
* [[/Archive 1|2016–2017]]

Revision as of 23:39, 28 February 2023

My name is Duncan Reynolds.

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mortee!

Thank you Mortee! Thank you for giving me nice and amazing feedback instead of just being a mean critic. I can already tell that Wikipedia would not be the same without you and that you are a big part of what makes this a good and dependable website! Flintmcneal (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Noor Islamic Center shooting or Bærum mosque shooting

Hey User talk:Mortee. How are you? I'd like to ask you for some assistance.

There are currently two articles on the Bareum mosque shooting in Norway. Its Bærum mosque shooting and an article I wrote titled Al-Noor Islamic Center shooting. I believe the first article lacks sources and is biased while mine is a little more objective and should be the main article. I made an edit on the talk page where I state why my article should not be fused with the previous. Talk page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bærum_mosque_shooting.

What do you think?

--Albert Falk (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Albert Falk, I'm well, thank you. While I was looking at it, another editor has gone ahead with a merger. I agree that your article was the cleaner of the two, and I think the new version is an improvement. Since it's a very recent event, there'll probably be more coverage and other editors getting involved, so if you want me to take another look later, I'm happy to. Best, › Mortee talk 14:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you open the Teahouse?

How do you open the Teahouse? KirbyKomics (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KirbyKomics, here's a link: WP:TEAHOUSE. There should be a link at the top to ask your question. Welcome to Wikipedia - I hope you enjoy it here. › Mortee talk 07:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Darren Grimes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Darren Grimes 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/Darren Grimes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"First А Women's Basketball League of Montenegro" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect First А Women's Basketball League of Montenegro. Since you had some involvement with the First А Women's Basketball League of Montenegro redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pkbwcgs: thanks for letting me know. I've !voted delete and the same rationale applies to any others of the same sort you come across. Thanks for tidying these. › Mortee talk 14:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"2009–10 Women's А Basketball League of Serbia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2009–10 Women's А Basketball League of Serbia. Since you had some involvement with the 2009–10 Women's А Basketball League of Serbia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: thanks. As with my reply to Pkbwcgs above, these can be deleted and I've replied to say so in the discussion itself. They came about from moving articles with subtly bad titles to better places but the redirects have no value. › Mortee talk 23:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help if you can please

I hate to put you on the spot, I know it's been a long time, but I am in real need. I put Biblical criticism up for FA and then left WP for almost two years, and it got archived. I returned recently and renominated it about a month ago, and this time it is getting little response. I am putting out a call to everyone I know because the coordinator has said if it doesn't get more interest he will archive it again. If it fails again I'm afraid that will be the end of it, and IMO, this is an important topic that should be amongst WP's best. It needs a source review - someone willing to randomly check sources to be sure they actually say what the text says. There are too many for anyone to do alone, but doing any at all, even just one, would be deeply appreciated. Post it here. Please help if you can.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenhawk777. I'm glad to hear you're back here. I can't help with this, I'm afraid. The sources are mostly books and I don't have access to a library. I hope your article gets attention from people better placed to serve it and that you stick around regardless. All the best › Mortee talk 02:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the good wishes. The library we all check is online. It's google books and WP has its own library. I will be around for at least this year. And don't worry about the FAC. It'll work out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Wikipedia survey

Mortee, Thank you for your input. I would really appreciate your help bringing in some more responses. I don't need anything too specific for the project. I just need a few good quotes from each respondent about the appeal and value of wikipedia. The personal questions are just to establish who the quote is coming from and the other questions are mostly out of personal interest. Timbktoo (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For context, this is the post on the teahouse Wikipedia:Teahouse#Very broad questions about Wikipedia and about your experience as Wikipedians. Timbktoo (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timbktoo, I've posted my response to your survey now. I enjoyed thinking through the questions and writing the answers. I hope you find them useful. I hope it's OK that I've also posted a link to the survey here on Jimbo Wales's talk page, which functions as kind of a general internal discussion board for Wikipedia. Perhaps that will lead a few more editors to give their answers. Once a question at the Teahouse looks like it's been responded to, people are less likely to read it in full, so this seemed to me to be a reasonable way of drawing attention to it. All the best, › Mortee talk 18:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mortee, Thank you so much! Your answers are very very helpful. This is exactly what I was looking for! I really appreciate your help and guidance!Timbktoo (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timbktoo you're extremely welcome. All the best for the project! If you ever feel like doing some editing yourself and have questions, I'd be happy to help if I at all can. › Mortee talk 18:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vintner's Luck

Hello Mortee, I hope you're well. I've very recently started a userspace draft for The Vintner's Luck by Elizabeth Knox. It's still very much in the early stages, and whilst looking for some other links, I happened across your draft from January 2018. Your draft is much more advanced/useful. I wondered if you'd mind if I picked up the content, added in more details and published the page? Or would you prefer to pick up your draft again, in which case I'd be happy to add bits and pieces once it's in mainspace? Just let me know. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chocmilk03 thanks very much for getting in touch. You're very welcome to take anything that's useful from my draft. I haven't worked on it in ages. I'll look forward to seeing a page finally published! › Mortee talk 17:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thank you! I'll let you know once it's up. :) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Published! Many thanks again. Still have a list of improvements to be made and please do make any amendments you like. I'll be nominating it for DYK shortly as well; thinking the inspiration by a fever dream is probably the most obvious "hook" but please feel free to contribute/suggest better. Definitely going to pick this up for a re-read once I've finished The Absolute Book. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chocmilk03: brilliant! Nice job with the article. › Mortee talk 14:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Mortee

Thank you for creating Mahatma Gandhi Institute.

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

Hi, I want to thankyou for creating this Disambiguation page. I hope you will try to make all links blue soon as blue is my favourite colour (Just Joking). Have a good day.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Iflaq}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Iflaq (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse question removal

Hi Mortee. I won't re-add the question and your response, but generally it's better simply let the post die a natural death through archiving or to simply close the discussion using a template like {{Discussion top}} when this type of thing happens. It's possible in some cases that the question might be one that someone else might have and the replies given might prove to be useful. It's also possible that someone (another host perhaps) may have a different take on things and provide an alternative answer. Unless the question or responses contain some pretty serious policy violations, it's probably best to just let it be archived once anyone has answered it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly. I felt in this case that it was better to allow them to just retract the question. That's partly because, especially given the context of their user talk page edits, I didn't think it was fully coherent, so no-one else was likely to have quite the same question or benefit from however an extended discussion might have gone. Your reinstating it was understandable, but since the reason you gave for doing so was WP:TPO - i.e. that by removing their own question they were also removing my reply - I felt I had discretion to give permission. I appreciate the message and I'll bear it in mind if something like this comes up again. › Mortee talk 00:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Vintner's Luck

On 27 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Vintner's Luck, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the inspiration for the 1998 novel The Vintner's Luck came to author Elizabeth Knox in a fever dream caused by pneumonia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Vintner's Luck. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Vintner's Luck), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thanking my post

Thank you! Any tips for a new editor? HiCooldude (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HiCooldude, sure! I see you've already been going through The Wikipedia Adventure so you'll have encountered some of the main policies already. The Teahouse is a great place for asking questions about editing as they come up. Another really helpful link is the Community portal, which also includes some lists of pages that might need some work done on them. Finding and making small improvements is a great way to learn how editing works. There's quite a lot to it, so taking it slow is often a good idea early on. Let's see, what else... carry on using edit summaries, which you have been doing. If you find yourself arguing with someone by editing an article back and forth, stop and go to the talk page for the article instead. That's probably enough for now! I hope you enjoy it here. › Mortee talk 18:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

Regarding our discussion on Sakubei Yamamoto, adding a fair-use image is not too hard, there are just a few things to be aware of:

  • Only upload one image, at low resolution (usually 220px).
  • Upload directly to English Wikipedia, not to Commons.
  • Fill out Template:Non-free use rationale on the file page.

More information is at WP:FUR. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): thanks for the nudge. I've added an image now. Could you please review the fair use rationale I gave? One issue I was concerned about was initial publication. I don't know which of the images were included in actual book publications rather than simply being published online. Also, now I've added the image, I'm not sure what the most elegant way of linking to the whole gallery is, whether with the External gallery template, a link in the image caption, or back to External links. Thank you again for the review and encouragement. › Mortee talk 13:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mortee,

I found my very first opportunity to fix vandalism, but i don’t know how to categorize it and/or give a warning to the user. Wold you mind helping me? Here’s the link to the page, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1021662688 RecRoomBoy537 (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed back before i could do so, but could you please give me some more tips for future reference? RecRoomBoy537 (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RecRoomBoy537, thanks for looking out for problems like this. There's no need to categorize bad edits. You can just undo them and explain why in your edit summary. One way is to go to the history of the page and click "undo" on the revision. It's also good that you're thinking about how best to warn/talk to people who do something like this. There's a table of templates you can use at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace. It includes a bewildering array of options but anything that seems close is likely to have the kind of wording you want. Some people, myself included, also use tools like Twinkle which make it easy to post these and also pick out the most commonly used ones.
The general rule is to start out with a level 1 warning and go up from there—if they've received a level-1 warning recently, given them a level-2. There are also somewhat gentler templates for new users who haven't been spoken to before at all. For this case, which is clearly a bad edit from a new IP user, I would have used {{welcome-anon-unconstructive}} personally. If they were logged in but hadn't been spoken to, I'd have used {{welcome-unconstructive}}.
There's nothing particularly formal about any of this, so don't worry too much about picking the wrong template, but do only use templates to warn people when it's quite clear they've done something wrong (as in this case). If it's ambiguous, it's probably better to talk to them directly or let your edit summary speak for itself (which you can do anyway; using warnings/welcomes isn't compulsory, though it can be useful). I hope this helps you. Let me know if you have other questions! › Mortee talk 01:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips and help! I’ll try to keep this in mind. RecRoomBoy537 (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! Any time › Mortee talk 01:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have another question. There is this guy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/180.150.124.123 who is kinda starting to get on my nerves(by how much vandalism he does) I can’t believe no one has found out about him(to my knowledge) and although some of his edits make me laugh a little, the rest just irritate me. Anyway, I need help because I don’t know what to do. Should I give him a big warning, should I make a ban request or should I report him and undo all of his edits(of which most have never been undone except for some that I fixed)? Thanks again, RecRoomBoy537 (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RecRoomBoy537 well, looking at their talk page they've been warned a lot of times over the last few months. They were blocked once last June. I don't think you're the first to see the issue (sorry!). The most recent warning is level-2 though. If you're going to WP:AIV (the main place to report a burst of repeated vandalism from one source), it should normally be after a "final warning". So I don't suggest asking for a block, but you could keep an eye on them if you want, in case they carry on.
As for undoing all their edits, it looks to me like most of them were reverted, but if you think they've caused problems that are still there in the articles of course you can try to fix them. › Mortee talk 01:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, normally when you reply on talk pages, you indent. It doesn't make much difference when it's just the two of us but it can be useful when there's a few people talking, to see who's replying to whom. I think it's all explained at WP:Talk page guidelines but I can't pretend to have read them recently. › Mortee talk 01:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I realized that I didn’t see their talk page last night, so what i said is pretty incorrect. So sorry about that, but i think that i will watch them in the future to see if they continue. I really appreciate your help! Thank you, RecRoomBoy537 (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, on my watchlist page it says “a request for adminship is open for discussion”. Do you by any chance know what this means? Ive been reading the link that it sent me to, but i am confused. Appreciate it, RecRoomBoy537 (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RecRoomBoy537, it means that someone has been nominated to become an admin so the community is asking them questions and deciding whether or not that should happen. The page about requests for adminship is here and the current open nomination is here. Hope this helps › Mortee talk 06:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. Thanks a lot for helping out, RecRoomBoy537 (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any time, good to hear from you › Mortee talk 12:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sakubei Yamamoto

On 9 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sakubei Yamamoto, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the art and diaries of coal miner Sakubei Yamamoto were Japan's first entry on the UNESCO Memory of the World Register? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sakubei Yamamoto. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sakubei Yamamoto), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia.com

I am using it as a reference for Draft:Dora Apel to have a ref for date of birth and part of the Early life and education section. David notMD (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: I'll take a look tomorrow but I'd be confident it's fine › Mortee talk 02:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again David notMD. I haven't been able to find any more about this one, except, as the Encylopedia.com page itself says, it's from Contemporary Authors (whatever that might be). Sorry not to be of more help. I continue to think it's perfectly good as a reference for these facts. › Mortee talk 19:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking . Will see what the AfC reviewer thinks. David notMD (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Hello. Yes. I knew about the Kings Beach Complex, and thought that this page was on Wikipedia, but it was only a draft, so I thought i could help the page become an official page, and not just a draft. Rui Beech (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rui Beech. If that's so then all should be well. It's all about the ANI discussion at this point. If that all blows over and you're still here, please do ask again either on my talk page or at the Teahouse about other editing. All the best, › Mortee talk 01:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you good sir! Rui Beech (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What if I get blocked even tho I’m not the user Epictrex? Rui Beech (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rui Beech: Hopefully that situation won't arise (assuming of course that you aren't). Blocks for sockpuppetry seem particularly opaque and hard to contest so I don't have any advice to offer you upfront. › Mortee talk 01:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K Rui Beech (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you taking Heironymous Rowe’s sides

Why are you taking Heironymous Rowe’s side? I checked out the convo on his talkpage. Rui Beech (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Beech I'm not trying to take sides. I have no role in figuring out whether someone's an alternative account of someone else, and I'm not an admin so I have nothing to do with any blocks. › Mortee talk 02:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I feel intimidated by Heironymous Rowe tbh. This is not how I wanted to start Wikipedia... I just came here to make Wikipedia better, that’s all. I promise. Rui Beech (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Beech I'm sorry to hear that. Like I said above, once the ANI conversation is over, I'd be very happy to help you out with learning the ropes. Get back to me then. › Mortee talk 02:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Perfect! Rui Beech (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me please? Heironymous Rowe keeps on giving me a hard time. How do I handle that and should I report it, bc it’s getting out of hand with him. (I’m asking bc you’ve been here for a few years) Rui Beech (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not something I can do, I'm afraid. You'll need to appeal the block first. › Mortee talk 03:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yaniv RfC

Should the Talk:Jessica_Yaniv#Proposal_(RfC) maybe be wrapped up now? Are you familiar with doing this? Thanks, CatCafe (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CatCafe, yes, I'd say so. I didn't realise I needed to do anything to prompt it getting closed. Thank you for the nudge! I'll look up what needs to be done and get it sorted. › Mortee talk 14:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again CatCafe, I was just reading the instructions but it looks like it was closed after you posted but before I read it Thanks again for the message. See you round › Mortee talk 20:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Dick Van Dyke Show

Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO).

Please remember that as the person attempting to make a change to the article, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify the change, and to get a consensus if it is disputed.

To help move things along, I have started a discussion on the article talk page about the disputed edit, which you will find here. Please take the opportunity to make your views known there. It is best not to restore the material you added until there is a consensus among the editors there to do so. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken I didn't re-revert anything. I changed a double space into a single space in order to allow me to leave an edit summary. I didn't reverse your change, and I left an edit summary rather than starting a full discussion, because I don't think this piece of wording is that important. I've made my views clearly known enough and the article is the way you want it. I'm very happy to leave it there. There's really no need to start talking about edit warring, disruptive editing etc. I haven't done what you seem to think I've done. › Mortee talk 23:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken I see this is a custom template you've substituted in, which is why it looks like you spent far more time writing your message than looking at what you were responding to. Reverting a totally neutral edit with a such a shouty summary and posting this high-handed message is irritating, but it makes slightly more sense understanding the mechanism through which that came about. If it's not too much trouble, could I ask you not to template me again, at least not without checking if your template actually applies to the situation? I'm not that active on Wikipedia so it'll probably be a while before we bump into one another again, and I used to appreciate a lot of your interventions in the 'behind the scenes' pages. I hope next time we get on better. › Mortee talk 23:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello Mortee,

New Page Review queue December 2022
Backlog

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

2022 Awards

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mortee&oldid=1142180533"