This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Notice
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
I had included the JTA citation to the caption of the original (German!) Antifascist Action flag, after it had been flagged by a bot, but due the Byzantine ways of Wikipedia I couldn't figure out how to place it appropriately. kencf0618 (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-added it to the caption, not sure about bot flagging, but I guess we shall wait and see what happens. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 00:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The bot thing was automatic, bots being bots. kencf0618 (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stub sorting
Please don't use the {{Stub}} tag if you can find a more specific stub tag; stub sort when you can. To do otherwise will backlog Category:Stubs. Thank you. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 08:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No offence meant here, but I work in New Page Patrol, not in stub sorting. The page curation toolbar doesn't give me any other option than to just sort it as a generic 'stub'. If you want me to do more than that, its not really going to happen. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 08:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the page curation bar has the generic stub template is not a proper explanation for not stub sorting. All that twinkle and the page twinkle bar does for you is patrol the page automatically a split second after tagging. You are, in fact, able to tag articles with tags not included in the page curation bar manually and then simply review it afterwards yourself, which is what new page patrollers used to do before the creation of either twinkle or the page curation bar. Doing so will slow you down, but you're supposed to prioritize quality over speed in patrolling anything on Wikipedia, anyways. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 07:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(By the way, I really do need to be pinged when you reply, as I don't maintain a watchlist. Thank you.) --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 07:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses Sorry for not pinging you before. I've installed the User:Ais523/stubtagtab2.js script and I'll give it a go, but honestly it looks like a pretty annoying massive list that I'll have to memorise If I want to use it. Honestly I am perfectly happy leaving that as a job for Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting (their backlog is minuscule compared to ours). Clicking the stub button on the page curation toolbar to let them know that it needs sorting seems fine to me, and it is a bit unreasonable to expect new page patrol to do everything, especially when there is a dedicated wikiproject for exactly that. I realise that the NPP checklist says to "try to avoid" the generic sub template, but it also says not to waste time finding the perfect template. In other words; I have more important things to do with my editing time and am perfectly content handing this small job onwards to others that know what they are doing better anyway. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 10:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Insertcleverphrasehere: Being a NPPer myself (since around the time twinkle was less known about), I realize that it's often difficult to do. However, as a stub sorter, I can assure you that there are very few, if any other people other than myself going through Category:Stubs and sorting it. Unfortunately, Wikiproject Stub Sorting, while having a lot of useful information (hence the link to them in my original message) doesn't appear to be terribly active, at least beyond stub type/template creation. There certainly isn't a newsletter that I know of.
Looking at any appropriate categories for the page may help; even if you can't find a stub sub-category in the category you're in, you'll often find one in a category connected to the category you're in (you might have to read that a few times. I'm so sorry). You can also use a top-level stub template (such as {{film-stub}} and {{art-stub}}), click on "preview", and right-click-to-open-a-new-tab on the stub category to find one that's more specific and appropriate. In other words, there are alternatives to memorization. After a while, you'll start to memorize the pattern stub templates tend to be in, anyways.
Sometimes, you'll find that there is no "perfect" stub template, and you have to put an article in a stub category that's overpopulated, or a top-level stub category. That's probably why the NPP checklist says what it says. I wouldn't imagine anyone telling you to "not waste time" on an article just for the sake of getting to the next one a little more quickly. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 11:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I dream of horses Fair enough, I thought more people were involved over there, there is a list of like 200 participants, but I guess most/all are inactive. I'll do my best to sort the stubs I review. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 20:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get to know you more?
Can you have me? --Zoë2000 (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean, but if you need help with anything specific, feel free to let me know. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 23:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings
Hello, Yes I can find all the three sources in a published-book form. You think it is necessary? Wikis are more direct.....Let me know----損齋 (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikis are editable, and so can change. As a result they are not considered appropriate as reliable sources. I recommend sourcing the books directly. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 03:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please remove the tag if possible. Thanks for reviewing.----損齋 (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Though please note that if you have resolved the issue, you are free to remove tags, even from articles you have created yourself. Cheers and good work. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 03:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that one, sorry. The copy vio detector was down at the time and I was doing it manually, copying sections into google, but I must have forgotten to do that one (I was probably distracted by the subject matter, as I am currently watching the anime series of the same name). — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 18:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gaspard Nicolas Perrier
Saw that you put a BLP prod on Gaspard Nicolas Perrier-it was actually previously deleted per afd, just wanted to point that out! Wgolf (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! I'll try to remember to check the deletion log before prodding in future. Also, great work on reducing the backlog of late, I've seen you recently on the Top New Page Reviewers list, and the recent reduction in the backlog is mostly down to your hard work. Thanks! — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 22:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ACTRIAL
Are you actually for or against this trial? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For it. I am a little worried that there will be a massive flood over at AfC, and am concerned a bit because AfC typically has higher standards for articles to be created than we do at NPP for articles to be nominated for deletion, which might result in some Newbies being discouraged (but others will improve, so it might be a net positive). Reform at AfC is an important issue that we should be considering more heavily, because ACTRIAL is making AfC from an optional process into a mandatory one for newbies. All in all though, I think it is going to help stem the flood of garbage at NPP at least a bit, and I think it will definitely be a net positive for the wiki, if not necessarily a net positive for new user experience. I support the initiative and hope to be involved in helping reform AfC if deemed necessary by community consensus. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 23:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for such a quick teply. If you are for it, then you would not be supporting the Foundations 11th hour tactics for delaying it. There might be a slight increase in the flow of articles to AfC, but a massive flood is most unlikely. ACTRIAL is not making AfC from an optional process into a mandatory one for newbies. It still remains an option, perhaps even more so, than it was before. Theirchoiceis: Wait 4 days and 10 edits to be able to create an article in mainspace, or if they can't wait, go through the Wizard and AfC. The Wzard alone presents them with further challenges , so many will give up before they even get to AfC, and that's exactly what we want. That said, as AfC is not an officially recognised feature of the English Wikipedia (some people mistakenly think it is), strictly speaking, what happens there is not our concern. On the brighter side however, as some of us are discussing reforms to AfC it might be exactly what will help the changes along. If you support ACTRIAL, you may wish to reconsider before supporting the the WMF's last minute interference. However, please do whatever you think best. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hear ya. I haven't got the history that the rest of ya'll have with WMF and delaying, as I wasn't around during the first run of this, but I do think that the severity of the bug that was brought up over on the talk page warrants a delay. In any case, I'm not seeing a massive urgency, we have been working hard on New Page review and have managed to reduce the backlog by over 2000 in the last few days. While it would be nice to get rid of all the non-autoconfirmed submissions, and I see plenty of 1st edit submissions every day, I don't feel that it is so urgent that a week will kill us or sink the chance that it will start at all (I think that the roll-out of ACTRIAL in the near future is inevitable at this point). — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 00:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bug? There is no bug. We can roll this out ourselves using a local script which is what we intended to do over two months ago. The only reason the WMF is involved is because in deference to their proposal to provide some additional statistics, we agreed to wait for them. They never liked ACTRIAL from the start, but it's not within their remit to prevent it. Now they are attempting to dictate the entire project. Beware of WMF staff who post without the '(WMF)' in their signature. I've met all these people. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, there seems to be an increased effort to reduce the backlog in the last few days, but I fear to a detriment to the quality of reviewing. Have you noticed the distinct rise in the incorrect use of deletion criteria? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed a few (an A7 for a book today), but the recent reduction is mostly down to Wgolf and Boleyn stepping up their review counts (and a bit from me), and I haven't noticed anything sketchy from them. I did notice that Wgolf was mostly reviewing 'easy' ones a few days ago, but he/she also told me off for missing something (see above^^). Overall, I think that the quality of reviewing hasn't significantly dropped, because it is mostly experienced reviewers that have been doing the extra work. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 00:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, what you may not have realised is that absolutely anyone, even a raw newbie can place deletion templates on new pages. That part of the operation is not restricted to accredited reviwers. I've spent about three hours a day on NPP over the last week or two (not that you'll notice because I mainly look at what's going on rather than patrol the pages myself) and I've reprimanded half a dozen of them again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the 'bug' you mentioned appears to legit (you never know), but I'm more than convinced that it's a trump card the WMF has kept up its sleeve for the last minute. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that, and am grateful for the work you put in reviewing the reviewers. All I meant is that I don't think that the recent reduction is due to a higher-than-background-level of bad reviews. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 01:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NPP Flowchart
On a side note, I am working on a flowchart to help new NPPatrollers work out a process to fully review any article without getting lost or having that "not sure what to do here so I'll leave it to somebody else" issue that plagues the backlog. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 00:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like an excellent idea. Perhaps it could even replace the hurried flow chart I made for WP:NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I finished my (very) rough draft of a NPP flowchart. If you can read my writing, let me know what you think so far. Ideally I'd like to create an interactive chart with links to various information pages, perhaps you could suggest some methods you might know of? — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 02:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at it right now while I'm having my breakfast. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What computer platform do you usually use? There are some free programs for quickly making flow charts. I'm happy to help you with it, but it will be your project. Shows a lot of initiative. Not many people are prepared to do this kind of thing these days. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Windows. I can always put it together in Inkscape, but If I'm not making it interactive, a program such as [1] would probably be the easiest (I will probably use a program like this one to make a second draft, as it looks the easiest to modify/experiment in. That being said, ideally I would like it to be interactive using the mediawiki software to be able to insert links directly into the flowchart. I could do a crude version using a table and invisible cells to draw the arrows into, this is probably the method I will choose unless there is another, better, method that you recommend. Is there a way to add links to certain areas of an image on the wiki, so that you can click on certain areas of the image and they will link you to other articles? (I swear I have seen something like this somewhere, but can't remember where). — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 04:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Check you email first. Before you start considering making clickable areas or links in a graphic, you need to be happy with what it will look like. Getting a complex flowchart like this just right is not easy even if you think the flow is easy for you to comprehend. I've made many flow charts and this is a first mistake I often used to make; it's the same mistake sotware creators very frequently make, they look at what they have made from the mind of the programmer rather than the end user who just wants an easy tool to use. Not only for software, but also for machines and other technical equipoment. I've had a lifetime of being paid to rewrite (and translate) technical user manuals into simple language. I was once given a set of instructions for German farm machinery to translate into English, during the translation I discovered that if users had followed the instructions, they would have risked getting their fingers chopped off. Farm workers are not noted for an intellectual level of language.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I finished the first digital draft of the flowchart (at right). let me know what you think, and any suggested changes you would make. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 07:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited it quite a bit, as you might see if you look at the edit history of that image. It is pretty complicated, but then, so is NPP. I've been testing it by going through the flowchart when reviewing new articles to check for inconsistencies. When you are reviewing new articles, if you would use it as well and report back your findings that would be very helpful. My hope is that eventually this flowchart will allow reviewers without extensive experience to review any article, even the 'difficult ones' that tend to clog the backlog. I might also post it to one of the talk pages over at new page patrol so that some others can have a crack at it. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 10:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Verve International
Hello InsertCleverPhraseHere,
Thanks for showing interests in the article Verve International I created hours ago, which has been speedily deleted without giving me the opportunity to defend it.
Let me quickly give a background of me: I am a journalist with interests in financial technology and payment industry, especially as related to Nigeria. In the course of researching for my work, I realised there is a dearth of Wikipedia contents about Nigerian payment industry. This discovery lately has spurred me to try as much as possible to get Nigerian contents published on Wikipedia. Like you know, painstaking researches and studies go into Wikipedia writing. This I have done without any prompting from anyone to write the 'Verve International' which has just been deleted. The suggestion that the page was promotional and advertising appears to me unfounded. Is Verve notable? Yes, and eminently so! Further research, as provided in the references, will confirm this. I studied several Wikipedia pages of businesses in payment industry all around the world (e.g. Discover Financial (US), China UnionPay with sections which do not cite sources, JCB Co., Ltd. of Japan, RuPay of India, I will appreciate you showing me the specifics that made 'Verve International' violate Wikipedia guidelines in related to these mentioned pages. There is nowhere in that article I laid claims to things with no citations or references.
Thank you as I look forward to your restoring the page, at least for improvement.
RovingFingers (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker). RovingFingers, User:Insertcleverphrasehere was the patroller. The actual deletion was done on further review by administrator Athaenara whom you should contact. I have reviewed the deleted article and it is just possible that it might meet our notability criteria. Verve is a large organisation and is probably unlkely to benfit promotionally from being in Wikipedia. However, as you most probably wrote the article on behalf of Verve, you have a Conflict of Interest and should have declared your associateion with the organisation. I'll let Athaenara respond on your talk page. Any decision to undelete will rest with them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung thanks for your comments. I have no association whatsoever with Verve; neither was I contacted by it or its representative(s). The only thing I guess I did that likely seemed promotional was sharing the link with a Whatsapp group (of Financial Technology reporters) I belong to. This I did with an intent to let the group know the page was up should there be need to give background to future stories about Verve. The fact is we are grossly challenged with web-based facts about businesses and issues in Nigeria; and several of us who have taken it upon ourselves to provide such contents when time and resources avail us the opportunity to do so need be encouraged. Athaenara, kindly revisit and review. I have no conflict of interest, nor intended to promote or advertise the page as thought. Thank you.RovingFingers (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I just want to ask what's wrong with the article? I've provided reliable sources and since it's a newly released album, I put citations as many as I can find. The remaining quarters of the album will be released soon and the citations will surely increase. Can you consider it? If not, please give me an advice what exactly to improve. Thank you. --Shanella12345 (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources seem to be just trivial mentions, i.e. articles about the artist with a mention of the album. It would be good to see some reviews of the album or something similarly in-depth used as sources for the first sentence. Some of the sources don't seem to mention the album at all, though I admit I am relying on google translate, so I may be wrong. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 11:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Insertcleverphrasehere I've just changed 2 URLs and added one. Please check it again. I believe, for now, that's enough and I assure you all articles mentioned the album. If not, the songs he performed from the album live. Sometimes google translate is different from the official english version i.e. "So What", sometimes it was translated as "What Then" or "Then How" and "Leave Me Alone" as "Forget Me", etc. Although others seem short, the point is there. I've seen several sources but all of them have the same exact content so I don't see any point adding it.--Shanella12345 (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. For this draft I'm not seeing notability being established. New articles generally need to meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG), a good rule of thumb is that a new article will need at lest two solid reliable sources with in-depth significant coverage of the topic (in this case we should be looking for game reviews by major gaming news websites or magazines). This has one source, IGN, and it is more of a directory listing than anything I would call 'significant coverage'. I've had a search online and nothing pops out as being suitable to hang GNG on, but that is to be expected for a relatively obscure, pre-internet video game. I'd suggest looking for old PC gaming magazines (physical ones) from around the time that the game was released, as this is where pretty much all of the PC game reviews were located in the mid 90s. As it is currently, I don't think this article would survive a trip to Articles for deletion. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 01:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit more digging.Moby games a wiki of sorts, lists some reviews for it, although most are not available online, there are conveniently two that appear to have some scans attached as links: [2], and [3], as well as one that I managed to track down on the wayback machine internet archive before AllGame was taken down [4]. Add these three and you should be pretty sweet. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 02:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re/ A page you started (2004 African Men's Handball Championship) has been reviewed!
Thank you for your message. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. This is the first time I've had to create a discography list. I'd be keen to know if you have of a better (consistent? usual?) way of formatting such a list? Alternatively if you could point me to a sample page which looks "normal"? Thanks again. -Mayuresh K 12:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could check out a page such as Dio discography for some simple tables that are the most common way of doing it. If you want to add full song info in a collapsible list, there is a good example over at Miracle_of_Sound#Discography. Realistically, it can be left how it is if you like it that way, with the green it stands out as being a bit different than other similar articles though. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 12:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really worried if that list looks different. I dont think it makes sense to list tracks of each album here. It deviates from the main topic. But will try and see if I can change the list to a regular table as in your first example. Thanks! -Mayuresh K 13:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, i found a format that looks slightly better. Hopefully this should work better -Mayuresh K 16:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks nice. It also has the benefit of being much more concise this way. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello Insertcleverphrasehere, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
Technology update:
The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225
General project update:
On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Thanks!
Hi (can't think of a clever phrase), thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! And think of it this way - I'm just leaving more NPP work for the rest of those who want to do it :) ansh666 20:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you: NPP vs AfC
The Special Barnstar
Thank you so much, Insertcleverphrasehere - by name and nature - for one of the most important statements of the year. I have searched for years to find an apt comparison of the two systems, and with this you just did it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try. Nothing to see here, just a vandal that managed to install twinkle and have some fun biting newbies. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 14:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unreview pages
Hi, could you please let me know why did you unreview the pages I marked as reviewed? One is candudate to Speedy Deletion and two are BLP. They don't need to stay in backlog for review. Cheers. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I PRODed and CSDed them, and would have marked them as reviewed had it been necessary. They don't need to come out of the backlog, they will either be deleted, or else they wont, in which case they will need to be reviewed again, so they should not be marked as reviewed. If the author strips off the tag without one of us noticing, and it is reviewed, then the article will fall out of the new page feed without being checked again. All of these are bad eventualities and mean that we should leave CSD tagged and PRODed articles unreviewed. There is a discussion about this over at: Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Marking_articles_that_have_been_tagged_for_CSD_and_PROD_as_reviewed_-_consensus.3F. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here) 15:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I usually follow the article which I marked as reviewed and don't allow author to strip off the tag. I also mark all articles as reviewed when I tag them myself. I do feel it's my responcibility to follow up until the article in question either improved or removed. But thanks for pointing me to disccusiion. I'll read it to see what's the current consensus. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm not sure how this is going to end up. I don't think that my actions of not marking them as reviewed are particularly helpful, because I still have to follow them in case some other reviewer marks them reviewed and then the tag gets stripped, I'll start marking mine as reviewed so that they don't annoy people who use the 'next' arrow to flip through unreviewed articles. I think that we need to have an automated process where pages that have PROD and CSD tags removed automatically get re-added to the queue. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 23:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tri Series
Hi, Could you please edit one of the pages to show what citation issues. I am unable to understand the problem with them. (Ankur) 13:43, 26 September 2017 (SGT)
As in score card in between the result instead of end of line? I didnt understand it. An example would be of better help. (Ankur)
Sorry for the late reply, I walked out the door last night just before your second message, and doing references on mobile is a pain. I have done the first reference on 1989–90 Australian Tri-Series with an inline citation as an example. Good work on all of these articles by the way, keep up the good work. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 18:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have edited 1989–90 Australian Tri-Series and would make the further pages using this method. But the ones already created can we let them remain the way they are? (Ankur) 10:36, 27 September 2017 (SGT)
The links are there, so it isn't the end of the world. You can leave them the way they are if you like. They are still better than many similar new articles that don't even include refs or links for individual games. Thanks for your work. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 02:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Appreciation is appreciated. Will try to finish all the tri nation series from Australia today and hopefully there won't be any red-marked international series pages left.
A page you started (Nick Scott (bodybuilder)) has been reviewed!
Editors do not generally succeed at RfA without at least several thousand edits. Usually not less than 10,000. You also do not seem to have a demonstrable need for the tools, nor have you demonstrated that you can be trusted with the tools (which would be impossible given your low edit count of less than 200). Please read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates: i.e. Successful candidates will almost always have edited Wikipedia for at least one year, will have thousands of edits in various 'maintenance' areas of the project, and will have made measurable contributions to articles. Solid preparation is absolutely essential in order to have any chance of success. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 21:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello Insertcleverphrasehere, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
Technology update:
Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
General project update:
The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
POV in Surinamese people in Belgium
Hi, I'm the author of nl:Surinaamse gemeenschap in België, the Dutch article Surinamese people in Belgium is translated from. I see you've put a POV template on the English article, but there's no explanation on the talk page. Could you explain what you think is POV about the article? I'd love to improve it. Amphicoelias (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I added the tag because the tone of the article does not seem neutral. It also seems only interested in relating stories of criminal acts committed by these people, and doesn't really report on anything else, such as how they get there, etc. It could easily be renamed to "Criminal activity by Surinamese people in Belgium" and be more accurate as a title (not that we should change the name). I also have suspicions that the article is gaming statistics to promote a certain narrative, for example it says that the legal population in Brussels is low, then says that the overall population is high, and claims (without a source) that half are illegals. With 30,000 in the country, if indeed there are that many, there will indeed be plenty of criminal activity among them, and the rest of the article seems to be cherry picking individual incidents in order to make it seem like Surinamese people are mainly criminals. This causes a major POV problem for the article. It needs a source stating unequivocally that Surinamese people are more likely to be involved in crime, otherwise it seems like it is trying to synthesize a point from cherrypicked data. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 17:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well, you can be sure that if the article tends anti-Surinamese, that I did not do so intentionally. Sadly, no proper statistics are available - not even on the number of Surinamese in Belgium - so news paper articles are all we have to work with. Since news papers tend to focus on the spectacular, it is true that the section devoted to the cocaine incidents is pretty large. Perhaps a "It is not know whether these are individual incidents, or part of a larger trend." would be prudent? I deliberately started the paragraph by saying "there have been repeated incidents." Nowhere did I claim that Surinamese are more likely to be criminals. I could not with a good conscience make such claims, because as I said, no statistics are available.
Btw, the source for "half are illegals" is Surisobe. It says so in the article. I'm not entirely sure where that confusion arises. I'm also not entirely sure what you mean by "it says that the legal population in Brussels is low, then says that the overall population is high". Could you perhaps clarify? Amphicoelias (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Though please note that if you have resolved the issue, you are free to remove tags, even from articles you have created yourself. Cheers and good work. — InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 03:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
![[2]](http://download.abandonware.org/magazines/Joystick/joystick_numero068/Joystick%20068%20-%20Page%20089%20(f%E9vrier%201996).jpg){kind=link}
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Joaquinito01 (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)