Thanks for your help and learn me how to edit the page, I've edited the part.
The article about the company is the partner with atari.
Can you help me again and let me know the next steps — Preceding unsigned comment added by بسمة النظامي (talk • contribs)
I saw your decline reason on this draft while removing categories from drafts and tried to improve it, and wanted your opinion on how I did. CodeLyokotalk20:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I saw your post recently in the (completely off the rails) discussion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aliza_Kelly and I wanted to ask you some questions. Before I start, I want to quickly clarify that I really don't care if that particular article gets deleted or not, I'm just trying to understand how AfD, GNG, and source analysis works. A lot of the "delete" comments in that particular thread are using arguments that I've seen dismissed in other AfD discussions, like that the tone of the article is promotional or sensational (the solution of that would be to edit and remove promotional language, not delete, correct?). Part of my concern is that GNG is applied differently based on the editors personal feelings towards the subject or an article itself - I've seen subjects with a lot less coverage than Aliza Kelly pass AfD discussions. It feels to me like she could have a 1,000 word profile in the Washington Post and some of the commenters in that thread would still say "delete" because they don't like her, the article, astrology itself, or the way that some of the "keep" voters are behaving in the AfD discussion. The dispute about the New Yorker article is particularly confusing to me. Again, I'm truly neutral here. I have no opinion. I sort of wish I had just stayed out of that whole AfD. But I'm just trying to figure out, as someone who's been editing and participating in AfD discussions for about a month and would like to start contributing actual articles at some point, what kind of sources are really required to pass GNG. I know that, at the end of the day, consensus is what really decides it more than anything else, but I feel like there has got to be something more in depth and concrete than WP:GNG that I'm missing. Do you have any guidance on this or further reading? Thank you! Niftysquirrel (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Niftysquirrel, hello friend. This is a great question.
Short answer – Check out this essay I wrote on the nuances of GNG.
Long answer – I've been in your shoes. I've been a new editor that was confused by our very complex notability policies. Trying to crack this puzzle actually launched me on a journey. I enrolled in WP:NPPSCHOOL and received months of training on notaiblity. Before NPPSCHOOL, as I saw articles I liked getting deleted that had tens of thousands of google hits, I often wondered if AFD was a bit of a sham, and wondered if people just voted however they wanted. After going through all that training, I can confidently say that there is a fair system, just that it's extremely complicated and basically requires training to understand.
The Aliza Kelly AFD is interesting for a couple of reasons. One, astrology is a pseudoscience, so that does raise the bar, the # of GNG passing sources rises from around 3 to around 4 or more. Two, it involves a paid editor. The community hates paid editors. Three, it is getting brigaded. Two and three have created a situation where, if there was any chance of being lenient because she is borderline, that is gone now. By the way, the string of recent delete votes is experienced editors coming in after seeing this thread at the administrator's noticeboard. Hope this helps. Feel free to ask more questions. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is great, thank you so much! Your essay is very helpful, as well as the recommendation of WP:NPPSCHOOL. That's definitely something I'd like to do once I get a little bit more experience under my belt. I appreciate the advice! Niftysquirrel (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fundacja Okulistyka 21, hey there. Each Wikipedia has its own rules, and English Wikipedia's rules are sometimes stricter. For this particular draft, there is a lot of text without citations to reliable sources such as newspapers and books. I went ahead and deleted a lot of text, this should make it more likely to get accepted. However this article still needs more citations to reliable sources such as newspapers and books. Right now the only secondary source in the entire article appears to be [1]. Need more citations to newspaper articles and other independent sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ricardo Fett, thanks for your work on this. Go ahead and hit the blue "Resubmit" button located at the article. It's at the bottom left of the red "submission declined" box at the top. Then a reviewer will be along shortly to take a look. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mustang397. Hello friend. Your edits renamed the "External links" section to "Life Position", which is not good grammar. Your edits also added a link to a YouTube video, which we do not normally add per WP:YOUTUBE-EL. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mustang397 (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)"Life position" is not the name of the section? Need "External Links"? If the video is not from YouTube, but from the site, then skip it?[reply]
Nellas Galadhon. Sure, I'm happy to help. What's your article name going to be? We should make sure it passes WP:GNG or one of the WP:SNGs before we do any writing. Not all articles are "notable" (safe from deletion on Wikipedia), so best to check notability before beginning writing. Also, feel free to contact me on instant messenger, please see WP:DISCORD for more info on the instant messenger I use. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! My instinct is to finish it more before sharing it but also worth not chasing a red herring I suppose.
Can you see my sandbox?
I'm at JTRS#5506 on Discord but I'd like to delete this as soon as you find me there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nellas Galadhon (talk • contribs)
Nellas Galadhon. Hey there. I was unable to find your sandbox. I don't see any edits to an article named sandbox in your edit history. Feel free to link to your sandbox so I can take a look. I friend requested you on Discord. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
db-author - It seems to me that Iamfarzandraftified your article, and then Materialscientist deleted the redirect that was left behind. I can't see the deleted revisions, but at first glance it looks like WP:G7 was not the appropriate CSD criteria. However, deletion of the redirect was probably appropriate since it probably qualified for WP:R2.
"vandalism" - I agree with you that it was incorrect to remove the subst:submit, although I don't know if I'd call it vandalism. I suspect this was an accident. It looks like the reviewer was trying to restore an AFC comment that you deleted. AFC comments and AFC decline messages should not be removed while the draft is in draftspace.
Was draftification correct? - This one appears to pass WP:NACTOR, as he has at least two named major roles in movies that have Wikipedia articles: Home (2021 film) and Kuruthi. So this topic is notable. The AFC decline reason was sourcing. All biographical details about this person are sourced to 1 citation, this one. The source does appear to be reliable. Reliable means that the website is not self-published, has an editorial process, and has a reputation fact-checking an accuracy. News websites are usually reliable. However your AFC reviewer Iamfarzan is correct that most of it is an interview, so it is arguably not independent enough. I judge this one to be borderline. I do not feel comfortable accepting or declining this one yet. I suggest you either resubmit and wait for a different reviewer, or add a non-interview source for these biographical details then resubmit.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alberta Association of Architects. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Note I don't think you closed it incorrectly given the information available to you at the time but given the new information I think it might need reassessment. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.23:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification. Just a quick note that I didn't close this, rather I was the nominator. Bummer that socks cast a shadow on the AFD. Hopefully we can come to a satisfactory resolution. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my mistake. Thank you for pointing that out. I will notify the closer now. I suspect the outcome may be the same, though some effort has been made to source it so I don't know. HighInBCNeed help? Just ask.23:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About editing on the same page
Hello,
Nice to chat with you here.
Saw you are editing Tong Zeng's Wikipedia page too, could we communicate?
Since you have a lot more experience editing Wiki than me, I'm wondering if you know why the page doesn't appear as a result when running a Google search. I was trying to find it in recent weeks and was surprised to see it still doesn't appear as a result. I also asked another editor who said it is probably just a matter of time before Google includes it as a result, but I figured I would ask another editor who looked at the page--perhaps you'd know? Is there an issue with the page itself or perhaps a setting I chose that is preventing it from appearing? Any insight would be much appreciated. Thanks! macgirl (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Macgirl, hey there. Pages don't appear on Google until they are marked as reviewed by a new page reviewer. More details at WP:NPP. There is a big backlog, it can take a couple months sometimes. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response! That makes sense. I'll keep an eye on the article, hopefully it will be reviewed soon. It's also unfortunate that the backlog is so long. I wish I could contribute more than I do... :( macgirl (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations from WikiProject Articles for Creation!
Hello there @Novem Linguae I was wondering if you're still open for mentorship. In short, I'm looking for someone who can help both teach me, and help me improve on the basics and move into advanced areas also. If you're able to help that would be fantastic, cheers! J-Man11 (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
J-Man11. Hello friend. Sure, I'm happy to mentor, mainly through being asked questions. I'm also happy to instant message/chat about Wikipedia in general. Feel free to ask questions here, via email (click "Email this user" option), or on WP:DISCORD (my preferred instant messenger). Let me know what kind of help you need and what you have in mind. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - just wondering if you were you are aware of User:Headbomb/unreliable.js. I've only just installed Citehighlighter, I'm not aware of any interaction issues; but there will surely be an overlap? It would be good to think of some kind of merge possibly. Two other comments: 1) Rather than highlighting the entire text of the reference, unreliable just highlights the source - personally I find this less intrusive. 2) I'm not sure if red-green colour blindness issues would come into play here, but it might be necessary to consider (WP:MOSCOLOUR). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
unreliable-citehelper comparedHi - a follow up comment. Not sure if these classify as bugs but nevertheless: the image at right is from the article Queen of Rhodesia (I was GA reviewing this, why it's come up). With Unreliable installed I see the source is classified as marginally reliable, whereas Citehelper classifies as generally reliable. Further, the lower image shows what happens when you have clicked on a reference (the blue highlight), but the linked source still shows Unreliable's classifying colour, whereas the Citehelper's colouring has disappeared (perhaps that was deliberate on your part?). This is just my personal view, but it does reinforce for me why highlighting the whole reference is less useful. Thanks for all your work and regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If someone passes one of the PROF criteria, it is not necessary for. them to have "reliable, secondary, independent sources such as newspapers and books that go into detail about her biographically. " nor does it matterr if "Most of the citations currently in this article are written by her, or are WP:SELFPUBLISHED websites" WP:PROF is not GNG Any reliable source for the bio is ok, including an official CV. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey DGG. Thanks for the message. I had a bad experience approving Zillur Rahman (professor), where an admin told me I can't see how you could accept a biography of a living person entirely lacking independent verifiable references, so I no longer accept drafts with poor sourcing. There are also top NPPers that suggest always draftifying these types of articles. So unfortunately I don't think this kind of thing is black and white. I haven't checked Draft:Jasone Cenoz lately, maybe it's better now, but at the time I declined it for poor sourcing, it had 21 sources, and they were all self-published or non-independent. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see the discussion. The problem was justifying the key claim, of being an author of a widely used textbook. ,In my experience, except for authors of the most famous textbooks, it can be very difficult to justify. Sometimes there will be a third party source, but often its a very weak 3rd party source; sometimes there's an attempt to use a publisher's blurb, sometimes I've been able to prove (or disprove) it by looking for others. If that's going to be the criterion, it's often wiser to try for WP:AUTHOR, which is an absurdly weak standard. The article was deleted in any case not for lack of notability , but speedy deleted as G11 , promotional ; it was of course somewhat promotional , but so is to some extent every article on a person place, company, product, or almost anything. The question for G11 is whether it was unfixable promotional , not just with respect to intent, but as written. It was not, and the G11 was an error, because it was in large part factual. (Of course, if an article about a person however notable is really promotional , it does have to be fixed, butt if there's a factual basis, as there was here, it's not all that difficult if the person is notable enough to be worth it. In similar situations , I typically argue for deletion saying "promotional and borderline notable at best" , and that in fact is essentially what the admin said ("G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: self written vanity page, see WP:YFA WP:RS WP:COI WP:Notability (people), sources mainly self-written.)" This could have been a reason for an afd result, but it is definitely not a speedy. We all make errors, every single admin of us.
WP:PROF's exact wording was a matter of long discussion by the eds. who work in the field about the time I came here 12 years ago. We tried to meet the various objections, so some of it is rather subtle. If you look carefully at WP:PROF, it says the only part requiring independent sourcing is criterion 1, having an influence in the person's subject. (as this is not a simple matter of fact, unlike the other criteria) It then explains in the next paragraph that this is normally met by showing citations or book reviews, etc. Bookreviews are obviously 3rd party; but so are citations, because they represent the decision of someone else that the subject is relevant. A single citation or a few don't show that really, and there's always but argument over just what number is appropriate. I further argued that the very fact that a peer reviewed paper was published is a third party endorsement by the reliable 3rd party, the editor of the journal, in which case everyone with 2 or 3 papers would be notable. After I and some colleagues said this, the people who didn't like WP:PROF stopped arguing.
Now it gets interesting: just on the off chance, I checked Rahman's citations, I found something unexpected: the AfD didn't need to depend on the textbook at all. His count for citation to peer reviewed papers in decent journals is 822, 363, 334, 296, 276.... and that's very easily enough to show notability in any field! Neither you nor the admin nor anyone checked for this. So I am going to rewrite the article on that basis, in non-promotional language. Just as checking google is the first step for gng, checking google scholar is the first step for Prof. We all sometimes skip both of these if it seems really unlikely, but we're all sometimes wrong.
DGG. Thanks. I'm glad you like the GNG essay. I feel that WP:GNG is not detailed enough, and that the SNGs are too detailed. I try in my notability essays to compensate for that.
In regards to Zillur Rahman (professor), Neither you nor the admin nor anyone checked for this. I checked this, and it is the reason I AFC accepted and NPP patrolled this article. His # of cites is high, his h-index is high, he passes WP:NPROF #1. I think we're on the same page.
After Rahman got deleted, I posted a question at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 39#Articles with poor sourcing. It wasn't black and white, but top reviewers made arguments such as Articles that pass SNG still need adequate referencing to pass WP:VERIFY, otherwise you could establish SNG in the first sentence and then write whatever you wanted for the rest of the article. I adjusted my reviewing to incorporate this.
And that's where I am nowadays. It's a bit tough to find an equilibrium on this issue, as there appear to be different views on this matter. But I will of course try my best to find a happy medium. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree on the need to verify. I've seen some odd unverified claims or errors in the bio part of unsourced WP articles. on academics. But the CV is a RS for the purpose--and it's very easy to add it--it's usually at the bottom as an external link. In my 12 years here, I have found only one deliberate mistake--a PHD that was never awarded. (there are other deliberate mistakes in cvs released by politicians and officials, but they're not academics--when these are encoutered, the article (and the news media--say so) To clarify, the pR-written departmental page , as distinct from a formal CV, always has the bio correct as far as it goes, but tends to omit the earlier career and is erratic in describing the person's research, which the pr writer usually makes no effort to understand. I try to find the actual cv, which is usually not indexed in Google. I find the most direct way to describe someone's interests is to list their best-cited papers.
And an article which just verifies meeting WP:PROF and says nothing more is by current standards a valid stub, as almost all recent afds have established. It's of course very poor quality encyclopedic writing-- I don't accept articles like that--I always suggest finding a little more, and one always can, because there's at least the publications.--and for a great many, the thesis is on worldcat, which will give the date of the phd, the title of the thesis, usually the name of the advisor, and sometimes the date of birth. The justification in terms of the AFC guidelines is to avoid the article even being challenged at afd.
None of the discussion you cite was about PROF, but the more equivocal sngs, which only presume notability. The most common case there is evidence fro an offical record that someone is in a legislature. They aren't deleted, tho I personally think they could be merged, the way we merge members of noble families. In other fields, with less confidence in the sourcing, it can be another matter. GEOLAND seems to have flipped here, and OLYMPIC seems about to.), DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24. Hmm, that ping didn't go through, good thing you posted here. Sure, happy to do it. Maybe I'll wait a few days to see if the BRFA trial is extended, that way I can just run the bot. No need to hold back, you can promote a bunch at once if you want, feel free to clear the backlog. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also I have another possible issue with the bot (or perhaps the process), the "Bot assisted promotion" steps have adding the topic to the FT and GT pages first, but then there would just be a redlink on the public pages until the bot comes through, right? Maybe there needs to be some notification that the bot is finished so a coord knows when to add it to the page? Not sure. Aza24 (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Aza24. I fixed the "List of" issue. The code now checks for the |title= parameter, and if present, uses that instead of the main article name. For the bot assisted promotion steps issue you mentioned, my personal opinion is that having a redlinked template on the page for an hour until the bot comes through is worth it to avoid forgetting to add it. But feel free to modify the steps if you are concerned. Another thing I did to help with this is I added a reminder to the bot's "job complete" message, e.g. Special:Diff/1052345633. Yes, feel free to promote at a faster pace, let's eat up the backlog, since WikiCup is ending on October 30th. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Use "ft2main" I believe, see the parameters at Template:Article history for more info. Sorry about the delay, I'm going to send two more topics your way. Hmmm I wonder if (maybe this is crazy) new topics could be added with <!--Topic--> to the topic page and then the bot could come and remove the "<!--"? That does seem tricky though; since the FT and GT pages are reader facing I'm hesitant to have redlinks hanging around there. Maybe the bot could put a message on a coord page when the cycle is done and remind them to add the topic to the page? Just thinking out loud here. Aza24 (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24. I'm fine with either. Let me know your preference and I'll implement it in the bot. By the way, BRFA has been backlogged for a couple weeks, so back to manual promotions for awhile. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Modern code... I would have bet that neither option was functional. I'll ask Gamer or something what he'd prefer. Thanks for the note on the backlog. Aza24 (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
requesting creating of content about news247plus
I don't know how to add or request. I have no idea. but this news company at news247plus.com is now since long (almost 5+ years, has a good domain authority and covers lot of news with good traffic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.251.232.46 (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JayPsi. Thanks for acting on my feedback, I think it has helped the article. I resubmitted the draft for you. Another reviewer then evaluated it and found issues with non-independent sources and with notability. I agree with their feedback. Please add high quality, independent sources such as newspapers or books that go into multiple paragraphs of detail about the organization, then resubmit by pressing the blue "submit" button. Should probably remove most of the existing references too, please see WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFPUBLISH. Citations to the organization's website should only be used sparingly. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Novem Linguae!
Thank you for looking at the draft I made, "Draft:Zvi Lotker." You left a comment saying that the sourcing could be improved. Do you have any advice as to what could be made better?
Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GayaPapaya (talk • contribs)
Hey GayaPapaya. Thanks for reading my comment. Top notch sources from a Wikipedia perspective are newspaper articles and books, written by folks with no connection to the subject, and that go into detail about the subject. Personal websites, university websites, company websites, organization websites, etc. are not good Wikipedia sources, please see WP:SELFPUBLISH. The idea is that the former have an editorial process, whereas the latter anyone can write and publish them. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the problem I've edited 3 topics of Ideology, Controversy whit assisted contribution by many members but has been taken down by this User:Amir Noor Muhammad. I repeatedly told the user that if he has any arguments of this topic the user can talk to me about it but the user didn't just not talk to me about it and removed large chunks of our contribution of it which i don't think is fair for the people who had place an effort contribution to the new section of the page. Also adding to the fact that he had many Controversy on this talk page where the many user had criticize him for similar behaviour like that which you may check right over here: User talk:Amir Noor Muhammad. Also the user had written to ban me from editing with his recent revert. The reason that the user always revert my edit is that "it's not related" "personal not on party lines" which i then replied to him stating that " so long as they are part of the party their political action is related to the party" but the user still insist on reverting. Hope you understand that i don't mind to be wrong but i would like your best judgment on what you can do to resolve this matter because those topics are with valid links and valid facts. Thank you. hope to hear frm you soon do talk to me if you do want to know more. User talk:Francabicon
Hi @Novem Linguae: Have you looked at the references and done the translations. They are realy dodgy. There is a difference between letter and letters that actually mean something. These are the latter. They are not references. They provide nothing to satisfy WP:V, nor WP:BASIC, nor WP:BIO, nor WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)
Scope creep. Hello friend. Thanks for the message. I have no objection to regular prod or AFD. Just that I'm pretty sure BLPPROD only applies to articles without a single reference or external link of any kind. That one had 7, which is why I removed it. Speaking more generally, these professor articles are confusing, and there appears to be an unsettled debate about whether WP:NPROF trumps bad references and WP:V. I've asked about it in multipleplaces and gotten conflicting answers. Anyway, happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that there was anything wrong with your request, as one of the admins who patrols speedy deletion categories, it's just not a request we typically see, to delete a draft page to move an article from main space back into draft space. No mistake made, I just double-check if I have questions about a page deletion request. LizRead!Talk!02:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hoven Linguae. Thank you for your feedback on my submission of the draft page Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative. I will be resubmitting a revised version. NMDann (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NMDann. Hey there. I moved your temp draft to the main draft page, and I commented there. If you want you can hit the resubmit button, but I recommend another round of editing first, incorporating my comments. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Novem Linguae, I'm afraid I've undone your WP:cut-and-paste move, as (a) that's not how we do it and (b) the page had already been substantially cleaned up by Sennecaster. NMDann, you are free to edit the draft now, and can if you wish replace some or all of the existing article text with that from the temp page (of which you are the only author). I'll delay deleting it for a while in case you want to do that; please let me know when you're done with it. Thanks to all, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure if I removed it all, but I think Earwig is coming up clean at this point. I'll close the CP listing as resolved and point to this TP section. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi, regarding your recent edit: "Undid revision 1056745766 by 192.114.3.241 (talk) - the 3 sources I spot checked don't use the term "moral panic" at all. WP:OR". The addition was discussed in the "Talk" page of moral Panic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moral_panic.
The citation discuss Condemnation and censorship of dissenting voices. They do not need to contain the wordings moral panic. We can continue discuss it in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moral_panic page, were other editors already viewed the suggested edit. A. --192.114.3.241 (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't seen it. I stand behind my revert though, for now. There does not appear to be consensus for that addition. There were dissenting editors in that discussion. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was wondering whether it Would be fairly easy to adapt your NotSoFast.js script to highlight articles published less than a month ago (for example) and discourage reviewers from reviewing old redirects immediately when they are published as articles? Obviously whether it would be desirable is another question.
I have been watching the current New pages patrol Backlog drive and noticed that old redirects published as articles come at the beginning of Special:NewPagesFeed and seem to be reviewed based on the creation date of the redirect, not the publication date of the article. TSventon (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon. Hey there. I can certainly look into this. Can you help me understand the request a bit better? less than a month ago and old redirects is confusing me a bit, as these seem to contradict each other. Can you elaborate? Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if that was confusing, I am not a NPP regular, I can give a couple of examples.
Welsh republicanism which I described as an old redirect, was created as redirect 10 May 2006, then published as article 23 November 2021 less than a month ago and reviewed 27 November 2021 (reviewed 4 days after publication)
Matthew M. Graves was published as article 26 July 2021 (not yet reviewed 127 days after publication)
One objective of the drive was to review articles which had been indexed by Google after 90 days. My question is, should reviewers prioritise articles like Welsh republicanism or like Matthew M. Graves? There seem to be a lot of redirects converted into articles so articles like Matthew M. Graves are waiting a long time to be reviewed. TSventon (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) A known shortcoming of Page Curation is that it behaves weirdly with old redirects that are later turned into articles -- for example, if I sort by "oldest", it shows Megapnosaurus rhodesiensis, created on 3 September 2007. Between 2007 and now, it didn't show up on anything, because redirects are not patrolled in the same way pages are -- but it was expanded on 30 November 2021, which caused it to stop being a redirect, which means it's showing up as a new unpatrolled page -- which it is, but in a very weird and different way (software-wise) from others. jp×g11:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG I am looking at Special:NewPagesFeed and I am sure that NPP regulars are familiar with how it works. I can understand why Megapnosaurus rhodesiensis was displayed as the oldest, but I was wondering whether Matthew M. Graves should be regarded as more urgent as it was published on 26 July and if so whether Novem Linguae's tool could be used to highlight articles like Matthew M. Graves. This may be a problem that only occurs when there is a large backlog. TSventon (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is calling a colonizer a colonizer not a neutral stance? While glorifying a colonizer who is a documented murderer for their acts of genocide is considered neutral? It is time to tell the truth about the history of this land and the White Supremacist narrative that likes to sugar coat the genocide of First Nations people is NOT OKAY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:65A6:A0:356B:44E3:D1EE:75FB (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it's a matter of taste, but this makes it look a lot better for me. Great script, by the way! I copy titles often and it never occurred to me to make the computer do it for me. jp×g11:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just figured out the script doesn't freakin' do anything (I am using Firefox on Fedora). I will attempt a fix. jp×g11:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG. Hello my friend. I made that script because someone requested it at WP:US/R. But after I made it, I discovered a better script called User:Nardog/CopySectLink.js, so I stopped work on it. Please try out the Nardog script and see if you like it. I may actually delete my script so that people don't get confused. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried installing that one, but it didn't add any button to the title bar, so I said to hell with it. Anyway, for what it's worth, navigator.clipboard.writeText(title) seems to work for me. jp×g11:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your participation in the November 2021 New Pages Patrol drive
The Working Man's Barnstar
For reviewing at least 10 articles during the drive.
Thank you for reviewing or re-reviewing 11 articles, which helped contribute to an overall 1276-article reduction in the backlog during the drive. (t · c) buidhe12:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Novem Linguae, hope that you're well. I was wondering if you'd be able to participate in a Signpost interview in your capacity as a contributor to WP:COVID19? I am enthusiastic about these interviews because they help remind other Wikipedians about the passionate and diverse group of volunteers that edit Wikipedia, and into the many discussions and editors that inhabit our space, nooks and crannies. If you had time to even answer a few questions here (User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject COVID19 interview draft) I'd be very grateful :). Tom (LT) (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Novem, just a quick question about one of the two self-published tags for my last draft.
I took a long shot on the personal blog of the subject but was wondering about the second citation. Do third party wikis count as self-published? Hoping for some clarity on this. -Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjwxiv (talk • contribs) 06:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Jjwxiv. Good question. Unfortunately wikis are considered unreliable sources. In general, anything without a paid writer and an editor that reviews/edits/approves the text is considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles should be based on mostly high quality sources such as newspapers, books, and academic journals. Hope that answers your question. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I keep adding the new paragraph with references on the above person but it keeps getting deleted.. there is no reason it should as it is based on hard facts.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.51.162 (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. Your edit had tone problems. You can't say things like Its sad that he was able to get away with such massive corruption.. in an encyclopedia, that is not the factual tone that we use. Something controversial like this also needs more citations. Please see HELP:CITE for how to create <ref></ref> style citations. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not copy/paste from a web site. It's all original text, plus a quote (which is indicated in quotes, and there's nothing wrong with that). Again, it is not in any way a direct copy of that page. Can you please show me how to view the article I created, as it's been deleted? Thanks! Geschwindic (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Enthyrrhapha
Request on 18:12:21, 13 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Voynich42
Hi! I apologize if this isn't the correct place to be responding to your message as I'm super new here, but I looked at the mindat pages you sent in response to my article about Enthyrrhapha, and it seems like that genus is listed as synonymous to Euthyrrhapha. I am not super familiar with mindat's system of organization, so I'm not sure why both genera have different pages, but from what I'm seeing, I think they're two names for the same thing. I was also just informed that I submitted the redirect to the wrong location, so I plan on fixing that as well (assuming you agree with my assessment that a redirect is needed). Thanks for the help!
