User talk:Ifnord

Additional archived messages are here.

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Ifnord,

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)

Copperhead

Why would a US species be written about in BE? Also, part of the paragraph was AE. 75.111.203.5 (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Matthias Schmidt

Hi, you added a notability tag to this article. WP:NAUTHOR applies and his significant book has a full page write up in the New York Times [1]. In addition other full page reviews are noted in the article. Would you object to me removing it? Szzuk (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Szzuk. I went back to the article to remove the tag but didn't see the information you mentioned. If you wish to add it in and establish notability, I certainly wouldn't mind if you removed the tag as well. Ifnord (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Ijaaz Ebrahim

Hi, why you proposed the Article Ijaaz Ebrahim in to Deletion? What was the problem with that article? Actually he is an actor who works in Malayalam Cinema in India. And we people think that a Wikipedia article is must for his fans and supporters to know more about him!! There was enough references, external links & contents for the article...

So cloud you please tell me that why you proposed for deletion?

Here I am attaching the URL. So please let us know the reason. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijaaz_Ebrahim

Thank you!!

die

ronnie needs to be on american tode or i will commit cry myself to sleep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcexoticanimalz (talk • contribs) 03:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Declined PROD

Hi Ifnord,

I found JK! Studios while doing new page patrolling, and I see your PROD tag got removed. You might want to take it to AfD now. --Slashme (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Hello, I'm 90.255.142.14. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! --90.255.142.14 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarification on my mistake

I am only adding what was told by Snyder. The deletion message was unintentionally removed as I wasn't double checking my tabs. I apologise for that. However, I refrain from adding needless things. But there was an error where test audiences said SC was unwatchable. It was the executives only. Not the audience. I only meant to edit that. Apologies for removing that notice for deletion Bjthegeek (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Ian Pont

The page was updated to move the old information into coaching career — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toughcookie44 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Toughcookie44, it would be helpful if you used an edit summary to let people know what you're doing. Ifnord (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Florida

There is no question whatsoever that Florida is across the southern border of Laurium. I'm not sure why you would remove this. --2604:2000:14C3:4031:1070:3702:45DA:A7D3 (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that lists Michigan and Florida as neighbours, please add it. Ifnord (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Citations

Hi, I'm new. (Duh). And struggling with citations. ChattanoogaTREND.com is a 3-year-old business publication with 7000 readers a month. Maybe I'll figure out that citation part soon. Any advice? I'm reading all the important advice pages I think. My career started as a UPI reporter, so I completely understand objectivity and staying neutral. The magazine's a great reference guide on all things Chattanooga. We don't have an Associated Press bureau here, sadly. ````

Hello, User:AnnRubyChattanooga. Thank-you for looking for more information about writing here. I think you will find WP:CITE helpful in using references and sources. You'll find WP:NOTE helpful for our standards of notability - which we use to decide whether or not content should be included. You will find WP:CONFLICT useful when writing about topics you may have a conflict of interest in - and details about how to disclose that and whether or not you are being paid to edit here. Ifnord (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank for the help with that IP, Ifnord. They were on a roll! S0091 (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious

"there's a good feeling from rescuing an article"

Thank you for watching over new additions, with specific messages, for beginning articles such as Behavioral medicine and Correctional nursing, for welcoming new users and telling theming how to reference, for rescuing articles, for service from 2005, for support "obviously" following your standards, - mental health provider, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2254 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank-you, so much, Gerda Arendt. That was a kindness. Ifnord (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

BS political attack on page for the epoch times

Please remove the cheap, BS, "conflation of trump and nazis" political attack from the page on The Epoch Times. See this sentence: "It has been criticised by mainstream news outlets for its favorable coverage of right-wing politicians in the West, including Donald Trump,[8][9][10] and of far-right groups in Germany.[11][12]"

About reversing procedure

Hi Ifnord! I reviewed the article Anastrangalia dubia and I jumped to conclusions too fast, the original author intended to correct a misspelling but made another one. Thank you for the heads up. One question about proper procedure, after a vandal edit has been identified, whats the warning policy? Should a user be always warned, only if they are registered and not an anonymous user, only after the second or later attemps...?

Thanks in advance, lets keep making Wikipedia a better place! PerinPeron21 (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, PerinPeron21, welcome to the anti-vandal ranks. It's generally thankless but somehow very addicting. You've been warned. As for warnings, there are generally four levels. The first assumes good faith, maybe it's not what it looks like. The second is a true warning while three and four are more direct and indicate they may be blocked from editing if they continue. Generally any edit that appears vandalism should be followed up with a warning on their talk page, regardless if they are registered or an IP. If you're using a program like Twinkle, you'll be brought to their talk page automatically. Take a look if they've received a warning already; if not then add a 1st or 2nd level warning. If so, then choose the next level. When they hit a level four, it's time to stop warning and report them to ARV. We generally do not issue warnings after a fourth level, simply keep reverting until an administrator takes action. You can find a lot of reading at WP:CVU if you want to know more. Ifnord (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

section removed from article "Social privilege"

In regard to this edit removing unscholarly and redundant section of article "Social privilege":

The edit summary *does* explain why this section was removed: this entire section is unscholarly and relies on the experience/writings of one "first year" student at Princeton - does not belong in an encyclopedia (this section can be re-written using actual scholarly sources)

You will notice that the section in question is redundant as the article already has a "Criticism" section. The section under question also contains no scholarly sources, only a link to an opinion-piece in the Princeton newspaper and a brief rebutting comment in a New Yorker article. This section reads like self-promotion and adds nothing of value to this article. If you can offer any substantive reason why you think this section does belong in the article, that would be nice to hear, otherwise I will continue to delete it. 8.9.88.165 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

8.9.88.165, the section you are blanking is referenced by the New Yorker - a reliable source. Please discuss these changes on the article's talk page prior to reverting again. Ifnord (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Other editors on the talk agree with me and that section has now been removed by another logged-in editor. It's great that you patrol against vandalism and I appreciate your efforts. But you are setting the bar for "reliable sources" so low that it is an insult to old timers like myself. This is why I no longer edit logged in because I hate getting into endless discussions like this one. An opinion piece in a college newspaper written by a student and a passing reference to said opinion piece in the New Yorker does not qualify as a reliable source for this topic. The very first sentence on WP:Reliable_sources says, "making sure that all majority and significant minority views" - this constitutes neither a majority nor a significant minority view. The reliability of the source is contextual, in that it depends on how it is being used: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." There is no reason to think that a freshman student at Princeton who penned a controversial opinion published in their newspaper is a reliable source on the topic of "Social privilege" nor does the passing mention of that controversy in the New Yorker qualify it as a reliable source in this context either. Don't automatically assume bad faith on the part of IP users who are doing their best to maintain standards for this project. 8.9.88.165 (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)