Jump to content

User talk:Newslinger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by J64372 (talk | contribs) at 16:58, 18 October 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Newslinger! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

April 2018

Information icon Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Alexander Gesmundo— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've targeted my reversion instead of the actual nonconstructive edit. I've undone your reversion. Newslinger (talk) 12:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Information icon Hi, Newslinger. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Xoxzo. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. This also applies to A7(waiting to tag it).Template:Z149 331dot (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I'll follow these guidelines in the future. Newslinger (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spam Blacklist edits

Thanks for cleaning these up, but in some cases, removing those sources leaves a section of text completely unsupported by a reference. You might consider tagging those cases with {{citation needed}} so that the issue can be addressed by future editors. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 12:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me. I'll look over my edits and I'll either add the tag or make content adjustments. Newslinger (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I came here to say the same thing. This edit [1] left behind an unsourced quote, which is not good. Also there was no edit summary, which made me hunt around in your contributions and talk page to figure out whether this was vandalism or not. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally omitted the edit summary for this edit. Sorry about that. I'm going to review my previous edits and add tags or replacement references before continuing. Newslinger (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About Shared source

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Shared source a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Source available. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyamorph (talk • contribs) 19:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I'll request a move to avoid fragmenting the article history. — Newslinger talk 19:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I think I made the same mistake the first page move I ever made too! Polyamorph (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your first and last warning!

You have the COI here and are unfit to moderate and edit this page because personal dispute unjustified reasoning you have nothing contributed to the talk page of the ferrolens just issued you retarded delete tag.. . Three senior editors have passed this page and an administrator prior. I will report you for vandalism, harassment and COI. Also ask for Administrative Enforcement to make sure you get blocked from WP.

The next time... This WAS YOUR LAST WARNING!!...

I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN KEEP UP ALL THE TIME WITH PEOPLE LIKE YOU!

Markoulw (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Markoulw, please join the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferrolens. My nomination of the article is based solely on the general notability guideline, and I have no personal dispute with you. — Newslinger talk 18:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger: Your patience is admirable. TeraTIX 01:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me do the semi-protected?

95.145.233.193 (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC) I don't know how to do it but can you do it for me I don't know what to do 95.145.233.193 (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can help you place an edit request. Which article would you like to edit? — Newslinger talk 08:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

95.145.233.193 (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC) The bits that say its not fully done at. 95.145.233.193 (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to the article? — Newslinger talk 08:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

95.145.233.193 (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:95,145.233.193 95.145.233.193 (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, your user and user talk pages are not protected. Fortunately, since these pages aren't being vandalized, they don't need to be protected. Please read through Wikipedia's protection policy for more details. — Newslinger talk 09:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

95.145.233.193 (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC) Yes they were they were vandalised yesterday but had to get rid of it and ban then for 24 hours. 95.145.233.193 (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi. Thank you for the welcome message you've left on my talkpage and the other helpful edits you've made recently. Catch you around. (signed) Dogs curiosity talk to me! 15:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​No problem! Thanks for volunteering to fight vandalism on Wikipedia.​ — Newslinger talk 15:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your review of my potential article: Paraconsistent Mathematics

Thank you for taking the time to review Draft: Paraconsistent Mathematics. It is probably quite premature to accept it as a full article since my work on it is so preliminary. But I thought I would test the waters. Please read it carefully (especially the hidden REMarks to editors) because I believe I have made a good start.

Schiszm (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schiszm, you did make a good start. I've moved your request for assistance to the Articles for Creation help desk, and responded there. — Newslinger talk 00:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:06:12, 7 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Jhureley1977


Ustad Bismillah Khan Yuva Puruskar is awarded by India's topmost authority in Classical Music and Dance form - Sangeet Natak Akademi. It is a body created by Ministry of Culture, Governemnt of India. Please advise why this award doesn't qualify. Yuva Puruskar is awarded to young artist and is highest award given to young musicians - classical art form in India. http://sangeetnatak.gov.in/

I am researching and finding more details for Yashwant Vaishav. Please advise.

Jhureley1977 (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jhureley1977, I'm looking more closely into the Ustad Bismillah Khan Yuva Puraskar award and I'm reviewing your draft again. — Newslinger talk 09:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-reviewed the draft. Just add a reliable source to support the text about Vaishnav's early life and career, and the draft should be ready to be published.​ — Newslinger talk 09:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee

Good review of the draft! I repeated/extended what you said , and declined--tho I was very tempted to consider G11. Please watch for recreation--I'd appreciate being informed. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​Thanks for reading through the draft! I was ambivalent because the author previously submitted two other drafts that were just like this one. The first one, Morley Baer, was declined on April 27, 2011 for non-neutrality, then approved on May 9, 2011 after the author expanded it. That article is now in much better shape, but a lot of the credit goes to KrakatoaKatie, who rewrote it in 2012. However, the second one, Ray McSavaney, was accepted in 2017 on its initial submission despite having the same writing style.
I do recognize that these articles are valuable as drafts. They were carefully researched, and the author spent a lot of time and effort to compile information from a large number of sources. I'm just not sure when it would be appropriate to release them into article space, since we could tag them with {{pov}} and {{tone}} and provide interested readers with more information than they would otherwise see. — Newslinger talk 07:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm assuming that the author is volunteering to go through AfC, as there are no technical restrictions preventing them from creating a new page in article space. Perhaps this is a good reason to be a bit more stringent on the tone requirements. However, if this draft were published and then nominated for deletion in its current form, it would probably be kept or moved back to draft space, not deleted. — Newslinger talk 07:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do some further work with them, & ry to explain to the contributor. As you say. sometimes a tone problem is severe enough to lead tyo an article being deleted, and this might well have been the case here. The specific reason would have been unsourced statements of judgment. (Since he is still alive, this is a BLP. and such statements are very often a reason for decline, and deletion as well) Having articles sent back from draft to mainspace to afd to draft is a current ly unsettled procedure. As you may have observed, some people are using it as a way to get drafts deleted, instead of using MfD, and doing it for that purposes is not considered acceptable.
More generally, everything about screening new drafts or articles is and had always been somewhat problematic--our procedures have evolved by trial and error over the last 14 years, and I have no particular confidence in the way we do it. Er get it right perhaps 80% of the time--we can't reach 100, or even 99, but we should be ale to at least reach 90.
The most important part is what I'm about to do, and try to advise the editor. We've had editors try to use WP for creative nonfiction before, some quite competently/. Some learn, others do not & eventually leave, usually but not always voluntarily. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the note you left on my talk page. I'm doing my good faith best to keep up with WP guidelines as I make my assessments. I've tried to add some information that I think will help to the XTC page. If the community disagrees, I can always move on and work other places. Jessamyn (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​No problem, and please don't take my note as criticism. It's just a courtesy to inform interested editors when nominating an article for deletion. I think it's great that you're volunteering at AfC, and I hope you continue reviewing drafts. You might also want to participate in more discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, since the notability guidelines are a lot stricter than they used to be several years ago. — Newslinger talk 16:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SAINT (software)

Let me know whether you think it appropriate for me to edit with a declared COI.Naraht (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Naraht, thanks for declaring your conflict of interest. Because the article has been inactive, the subject is uncontroversial, and you haven't been affiliated with SAINT for a long time, I don't see a problem with you editing the article. — Newslinger talk 22:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ewan McGregor performance in "Christopher Robin" sources.

"Give much of the credit to McGregor in the thankless task of playing opposite his adorably furry co-stars, ably handling the comedy derived from the fact that he doesn't dare let others see them." https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/02/entertainment/christopher-robin-review/index.html

"He’s an actor who can roll with this movie’s punches, whether it requires him to be light on his feet or dragged down by existential despair, exhilarated by childlike play or exasperated by a house-wrecking creature who says things like,'People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day'." https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-reviews/christopher-robin-movie-review-704632/

"First and foremost is McGregor’s performance in the title role. The guy sells being the put-upon, overburdened office drone so well that it’s a treat to see him begin to rediscover his younger self and let himself play...McGregor is the glue that holds this whole movie together." https://www.eastidahonews.com/2018/08/christopher-robin-nearly-buries-best-qualities-under-blanket-of-nostalgia/

"But it’s doubtful the movie would work at all if not for McGregor: He turns Christopher’s anxiety into a haunting presence, the kind of storm cloud that we can all, now and then, feel hovering above us. Yet McGregor is also an actor capable of expressing unalloyed delight. And when, as Christopher Robin, he finally does, some of that delight rubs off on us too." http://time.com/5357651/christopher-robin-review/

That seems like enough for now. Thanks for the agreement to put this in, would love to see it where it deserves to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.168.91 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done. Also, since the Christopher Robin (film) article is no longer protected, you can edit it without submitting a request. — Newslinger talk 16:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed — Newslinger talk 23:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lakewood Church

Source: https://www.lakewoodchurch.com/Pages/new-here/Speaking-Schedule.aspx

can you help me add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.187.34.247 (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 22:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of 2 software articles

Hi, I have problems with your overly eager renaming of the renaming of carefully curated articles with clear focus. Please discuss before in future before pushing such steps, i will rename back now. Cheers Shaddim (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shaddim, sorry about the inconvenience. If I propose a similar move again, it will be as a requested move discussion in accordance with the edit, revert, discuss cycle. — Newslinger talk 07:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Young Critics Circle Awards‎

Hi! I see that you accepted 2016 Young Critics Circle Awards‎. It appears at first sight to be completely devoid of references, so I wondered, what (and how many) independent reliable sources did you find that persuaded you that the topic is notable by our standards; and also whether you had some good reason for not adding them to the article? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also just come across the article from new page reviewing, it seems all the articles for each year seem to only have one source to varying degrees of unreliability. A search does reveal much sources either to establish notability. I would advocate deletion of all yearly articles. What do you guys think? ~ Araratic | talk 12:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Araratic, I considered nominating the 26 other award articles for deletion until I discovered that the 2016 Young Critics Circle Awards‎ might meet WP:GNG. If you want to do a WP:BUNDLE nomination, I'd recommend researching each award year and excluding the years that have sufficient coverage. Alternatively, it might make sense to combine all of the award pages into a single list article. — Newslinger talk 12:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Justlettersandnumbers, the draft author (BudoyAko) linked to the award announcement page of the Young Critics Circle's official site as a reference. Despite being a WordPress blog, https://yccfilmdesk.wordpress.com/ does appear to be the official site, according to the revision of the Young Critics Circle article that passed AfD in 2012. Entries can be confirmed at Philippine Daily Inquirer ([2], [3]) and Abante Tonite ([4]).
I admit that the subject is borderline in terms of WP:GNG, but I accepted it because I thought it would pass AfD (per WP:AFCPURPOSE) and because I wanted to be consistent with the 26 other articles (from 1990 Young Critics Circle Awards to 2015 Young Critics Circle Awards), all of which solely reference the same primary source. You're right in that it would have been better to add the sources before accepting the draft, and I was in the process of researching sources when you posted your comment here. In the future, I'll add the sources first. — Newslinger talk 12:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Newslinger, but I still don't see how the website of the awarding group could in any way be considered an independent reliable source. The page apparently doesn't meet our minimum requirements for notability, and I suggest moving it back to draft. If there are others equally poorly sourced, they too should go back to draft space.
It seems that you and I have fairly different ideas on minimum notability requirements, and I wonder if it might be useful for this to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation. Would you feel like initiating something along those lines? (because if I do it might look a bit like criticism on my part, which is not what I mean at all). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Justlettersandnumbers, the two sources that qualify the subject for notability under WP:GNG are Abante Tonite and Tempo. These sources were cited in the article on 13:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC). The award's official site, which the list article draws most of its content from, is used as a primary source. If you think that the 2016 Young Critics Circle Awards are not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, you're welcome to nominate the article for deletion. Considering the poor sourcing in the articles for the other years (1990-2015), other interested editors may form a consensus to merge all of the articles into a single list article. Since both you and Araratic have raised concerns regarding my acceptance of this draft, I'll start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation right now. — Newslinger talk 06:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Regarding my acceptance of Draft:2016 Young Critics Circle Awards‎. — Newslinger talk 06:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Seminal fluid protein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Refractory period (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed — Newslinger talk 09:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Rank listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Global Rank. Since you had some involvement with the Global Rank redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Marketing Group

Template:Mobile Marketing Group Hi you have recently reviewed Mobile Marketing Group Page for submission and rejected based on not notable. Could I please ask you to reconsider. Mobile Marketing Group is one of the largest providers of SMS messaging services to business in the United Kingdom. The largest supplier to the UK Government and the longest verified supplier on the Governments Digital Marketplace. This is not a new company having been established since 2011, with verifiable information showing double digit growth year on year. In a world where security breaches make daily news, for Wikipedia not to include a company that is without doubt the most highly accredited in terms of security does not make sense. I ask you kindly to reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.78.141 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I rejected Draft:Mobile Marketing Group because the company doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for corporations. After searching online, I wasn't able to find 2 independent reliable sources showing that the company meets these criteria. If you can find at least 2 sources meeting the criteria, and include them into the article, I'll be happy to approve the draft. — Newslinger talk 05:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i am not sock , y did you removed speedy tag

?

(Film Fan3 (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Film Fan3, if you are not a sockpuppet, then the investigation will conclude in your favor. Nominating it for speedy deletion will not help your case. — Newslinger talk 12:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer granted

Hi Newslinger. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, do check back at WP:PERM in case this concerns your application. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term non use, (it is a 'use-it-or-lose-it' access) the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REQ

Hi! I noticed you'd been removing some bluelinks from requested articles pages. User:Enterprisey/req-helper makes this process slightly easier, as it can "mark for deletion" all bluelinks with one button click. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enterprisey, I've installed your script and it works very well. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 04:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Amar Naik

Hi Newslinger, Thank you for reviewing the my draft. I took note of the comment you made stating that the ‘Daily Mail’ is not considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia’s list of common sources. I can confirm the link I included was referring to the ‘Zambian Daily Mail’ and not the ‘British Daily Mail’ which the Wikipedia guidelines and link refers to instead. Would you advise that I remove the Zambian Daily Mail link to not cause further confusion? Your help would be appreciated.

Vitruvian111 (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vitruvian111, thanks for the correction. I did confuse the Daily Mail with the Zambia Daily Mail. Sorry about that. The latter is not excluded from Wikipedia under community consensus (WP:DAILYMAIL), but is considered a biased or opinionated source since it's a state-owned paper. I've struck out my previous comment on Draft:Amar Naik and added some additional comments on the sourcing and the chart. Please be sure to add inline citations to the draft, since it's a biography of a living person. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 08:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Newslinger, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news
As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
Other
Moving to Draft and Page Mover
  • Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
  • If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
  • Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
  • The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
  • The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

  • Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
  • In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
  • MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
  • User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
  • User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
  • User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
  • User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
  • User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Request to revert deletion

My entries on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OLAP_servers were removed (on September 12) as there was no associated article. The article has been created. Please undo the deletion or let me know if I can do it. Thanks Nidhibhandari21 (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Nidhibhandari21[reply]

Hi Nidhibhandari21, the Kyvos entries have been restored at Comparison of OLAP servers. Please also take a minute to review Wikipedia's policy on paid contributions. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 00:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Nidhibhandari21 (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Sam Sailor. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, List of Costa Rican models, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Sam Sailor 17:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to DevOps page

You removed my changes because the source is unreliable - well its a blog post. If i just dont use the reference would the text stand (its much better than what was before) and all i did was add a blog if people want to dig deeper. Happy to do this differently if it makes sense - still new to Wiki editing to make it better in area of expertise. Any guidance appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mircohering (talk • contribs) 14:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mircohering, self-published blogs aren't considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. It's also not a good idea to promote your own blog on Wikipedia, since advertising is strictly prohibited by policy. Please take a minute to read through Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to see what kinds of sources are preferred for references. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 14:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar RfC close

Hello, Newslinger. You closed a RfC on sugar information yesterday. Would you have any objections to letting it run for another month to see if consensus develops? My original phrasing was clearly bad, but the discussion seems to me to be sharpening up the questions, which may mean we can get some agreement out of it. HLHJ (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Hi HLHJ, I've undone the closure. You may submit another request for closure if consensus emerges. — Newslinger talk 01:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking you !

Thank you, for correct guidance. Parth0810 (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Parth0810. Whether you choose to participate in Wikipedia or Wikibooks (or both!), I hope you enjoy contributing as an editor. Welcome! — Newslinger talk 16:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding G-Eazy wikipedia page

Multiple times you have removed content I have added to the wiki page of G-Eazy. You claim that I did not provide reliable sources but I did. I can't help but think that you are simply trying to protect this person from having their full story told and that you are bias. I would appreciate it if you restored the information I added to this person's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgfrank1593 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jgfrank1593, Wikipedia has a very high standard of verifiability for information added to biographies of living persons. I removed the content you added to the G-Eazy article one time (not multiple times) because the text is potentially defamatory, and it is not adequately supported by the sources you provided.
The HipHopDX page you referenced quotes @donaldglover's tweet, which says:

i hope i become so big and and so white that G-Eazy will say “damn, this nigga is white” and everyone will agree and nod.

Nothing in the quoted tweet provides any support for your claim that G-Eazy used the "n-word", and the page doesn't mention G-Eazy outside of this tweet.
The HotNewHipHop page states:

G-Eazy's controversial use of the n-word is mentioned

The phrase "controversial use of the n-word" links to a Twitter search results page for the query g-eazy n word, which is unreliable (as a page of user-generated content) and doesn't provide any information supporting your claim. This falls far short of the standard of verifiability required by the biographies of living persons policy. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and a brief mention on a website doesn't suffice.
When editors add contentious and poorly sourced material about a living person, Wikipedia's policy instructs other editors to remove it. That is what happened here. In the future, please make sure that any information you add is adequately supported by reliable sources, especially if the information is about a living person. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 21:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very rude welcome to Wikipedia

Newslinger,

At the top of your talk page, there is guidance that users should:

- Be polite, and welcoming to new users - Assume good faith - Avoid personal attacks - For disputes, seek dispute resolution

Your message accusing me of being a paid contributor (I know that the "weasel words" of "give the impression" keep your message from being a direct accusation, nonetheless, the accusation is implied) violates at least the first two, and probably the first three, of Wikipedia's guidelines for discussion.

I am not a paid contributor, and have no financial interest in any Wikipedia site, nor in the organization about which I have written.

Please adhere to Wikipedia's discussion standards in future communications with me.

An appropriate apology on your part would include your reasons for making such an accusation--this would also make your comment useful instead of merely abusive. As a new user, if I choose to write anything here again, I will thus be able to avoid confusing other editors.

Cordially, Howardcp6 (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Howardcp6, thank you for disclosing your affiliation as a ReGroup Foundation board member on your user page. The message I posted to your talk page was a standard template message (Template:Uw-paid1) directed at editors who are closely associated with a company or organization. I was not accusing you of being a paid contributor, and the message was not intended to be abusive.
After reviewing the wording on the template, it appears to be too harsh considering that you have already revealed your affiliation on your user page. I've replaced the message with a milder conflict of interest message (Template:Uw-coi).
I'm sorry for giving you the impression that you've been attacked. If you dislike the wording of Template:Uw-paid1, you can voice your concerns on its talk page at Template talk:Uw-paid1.
Welcome to Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 06:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Newslinger,

Thank you for your thorough reply--I was unaware of the FAQs for organizations, and will review them carefully before making further edits.

And I do not recall including my affiliation with ReGroup on my user page, because, as a new user, I was unaware that such information was of use or interest to anybody. I appreciate the efforts of whomever did that for me, and I'm guessing it was you. That was very kind.

I apologize for the confrontational tone of my earlier note, and thank you for the information you've provided and the work you are doing to keep Wikipedia clean.

Respectfully, Howardcp6 (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Howardcp6, I actually wasn't the person who included that information on your user page. The diff shows that someone made the change using your Wikipedia account, so I hope you're keeping your account and your computer secure.
Almost all editors use template messages for convenience, since rewriting the same message over and over again would be very tedious. Unfortunately, the wording in Template:Uw-paid1 is unusually aggressive for a "level 1" template, which is supposed to be gentle advice. Now that I've learned how this template can send the wrong message, I'll definitely be using it less often.
Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, and I hope you enjoy being an editor here. If you have any questions about editing, just ask me on this page and I'll be happy to help. — Newslinger talk 11:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Guess it WAS me, then! Thanks for your work here.

Howardcp6 (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:58:07, 18 October 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by J64372


Newslinger, Thank you for reviewing my new submission. Since the article was rejected based on the use of academic references which "only offer passing mentions of" the topic, would inclusion of more such references be sufficient to meet notability guidelines? This is a commonly used source of reagents for research, so it wouldn't be difficult to find dozens of published research papers citing the topic, including from "high impact" journals. To me, this seems to make it very notable, but I confess I fail to fully understand the notability criteria.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newslinger&oldid=864659229"