Jump to content

User talk:Etothepi

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnuYog (talk | contribs) at 03:22, 27 December 2019 (→‎Draft:Ghanada). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

I own a copy of Beeching and the sentence I keep removing from the Oliver Typewriter page does not correlate with it's citation, and it is false

Please let that sentence die a peaceful death. It is absolutely false, and not corroborated by its citation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:468:C80:8108:6561:1594:7BA3:A24A (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Etothepi,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 807 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"British House iof Commons" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect British House iof Commons. Since you had some involvement with the British House iof Commons redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Surtsicna (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Cuijk

Please explain why you have reverted my recent edit of the above Dutch town

ArbieP (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

WP:UAA reports on users with no edits

Generally, there is no reason to report usernames with no edits whatsoever. Per WP:UAAI: "Wait until the user edits. Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal. We do not want to welcome productive editors with a report at UAA, nor do we want to waste our time dealing with accounts that may never be used." The exceptions are obvious hate speech or names that attack a living person/Wikipedia editor, those are blockable even without any edits, but other run-of-the-mill violations such as names of organizations or products need not be reported unless and until they at least attempt to edit, and you should be able to clearly explain what the problem is if it is not immediately evident.

For whatever reason, every day dozens, if not hundreds of accounts are created that never make one single edit. It is our responsibility as admins to conscientiously review every report a user makes at UAA, so we have to check for contribs, deleted contribs, and tripping of the edit filter for every one of these reports, only to find out there's nothing there and therefore no problem to be solved. That's time that could be spent doing more productive things, but you basically obligate admins to do it by making such reports.Template:Z182 Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Autobiography

Hello Etothepi, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Autobiography, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Deepak Bhakhri

Hello Etothepi, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Deepak Bhakhri, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryton

Per WP:GEOLAND legally recognized places are notable and in this case it is a (former) civil parish so qualifies as notable. In addition the British History Online article contains quite a bit of text on it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article Deletion

I noticed you recently deleted my article GO Technologies for advertising. I was not trying to advertise, I just wanted to create a page. If it seemed too promotional, I can try to fix that. This is my first article and I may need help. Sorry for the inconvenience. DukeOfGrammar (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could tell me what part of it was promotional so I can remove it and submit the article again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DukeOfGrammar (talk • contribs) 20:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for reviewing the article. When I was writing that ValhallaDSP was “legendary” (based on, yes, a reliable source, but still), I felt “you know, if Sean (the primary ValhallaDSP developer) saw this page, he would be either annoyed or embarrassed.”

The article main problem is that it uses a lot of technical jargon which only music producers can really understand, so I will, over the rest of this decade (all one month of it), make the article more accessible and easier to understand.

I will also, if noted by reliable third party publications, add notes about Z-DSP version of Shimmer as well as “Halls of Valhalla” (which is a cartridge for a hardware unit). Samboy (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:45:20, 30 November 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by DML expert

I need help with how I can improve my article that I submitted, make it longer, change source, add sources etc
Hello, can you please help me with my article, and give me some suggestions to how I can improve it.

DML expert (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Draft:Barrie Jr. Sharks

Hello Ethothepi,

You recently reviewed my article on the Barrie Jr. Sharks and you declined it saying that my sources were unreliable, however my sources were providing the statistics that I had put into my article. What exactly am I supposed to do? I don't see how those sources are wrong at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobLewis8 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi RobLewis8 -- In order to qualify as notable, the team needs to have recieved significant coverage by reliable independant sources. The problem with your sources is that tables of statistics do not constitute significant coverage. They are fine to use for citing statistical information in the article, but we would also like to see (for example) some news articles about the team. •≈20+π(talk to me!) 23:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Barrie Jr Sharks

So basically what you’re telling me is that if I find a random article on the Barrie Sharks, I’ll be approved? RobLewis8 (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jack Turban

Not sure if you noticed, but the author of Draft:Jack Turban appears to have a COI. It can be seen from their contribs. I would have tagged the draft with a COI tag, but I am now sure how draftspace handles this. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:43:27, 2 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Tyler mack13


Dear Etothepi,

I was wondering how is Draft:Allan Aziz no credible enough he is a famous musician around the houston area and is on Spotify and Apple Music. It is hard enough to get on Spotify but to get on Apple Music that is a accomplishment by itself. He has songs with famous rappers ad singers so dont understand why it is so hard. Why does it have to be so critically nitpicked he's an accomplished notable figure by himself. Why does it have to be declined why couldnt it be accepted and published on the web. Can a accomplished young man not get the recognition he deserves?

Tyler mack13 (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:13:26, 4 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Echezuria



Echezuria (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Etothepi, Thank you for reviewing my submission of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sal_Jobe I am unclear as to why the article is thought of as an advertisement, if you can shed some light on it, I am more than happy to make the changes necessary.

I would like to highlight that I made sure that all the entry were factual and had referent to trusted publications.

If you can tell me which part you would like me to change, I am more than happy to make those changes.

Thank you in advance

Luis

@Echezuria: - Please read WP:PEACOCK for a better understanding of the kind of language not to use in articles. There is far too much in the article for me to list it all, but generally speaking if a phrase serves only to express your opinion about something, it should be removed. Thanks for the question! •≈20+π(talk to me!) 16:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Etothepi: - Thank you for your advice. I will of course read the article you pointed me to and make changes, then re-publish for your consideration.

Draft:Gary Reamey help

Hi Etothepi, I am needing assistance on my Draft:GaryReamey page. I saw your comment when my page was declined again, but am needing help on how to improve it to meet Wikipedia standards. I have made changes since I've had feedback and keep trying to improve, but could use more advice on what specifically is causing a red flag on the page. Would you be able to assist? Thank you for your help.

Soundsoftexas (talk)

Can you please re-review Crossroads of the Elements

You rejected the article and stated that it's an article on a fictional subject and that is not correct.

It's an article on software from the late 80's and is still very much so in existence today. It is referenced in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Major_BBS and can still be accessed on many BBS servers that are still running. These two lines below are servers that still run this software. telnet://xroads.macro10.com:7777 telnet://bbs.phospher.com:23


Here is a like to the updated draft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Crossroads_of_the_Elements — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desean1625 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Etothepi: I added a source that I was able to find in the wayback machine. Other than that the information comes from the game itself. I am unsure how to cite that.

Draft:Ghanada

Etothepi, Greetings, I have made changes according to your suggestions. Can you please approve this wiki page? Thanks.
Etothepi, Hey, I have made changes according to your comments. Kindly have a look & approve the same. I'm looking forward to hearing from you soon. Thanks.

Hey, Can you please re-review? Thanks. AnuYog (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AnuYog Done. There's still some promotional language and a section that appears to be a copyright violation. eπ/💬 16:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Etothepi, Can you please guide me? It would be great help.
AnuYog The copyright violation is in this section, copied from here. My concern with the tone is that it sounds a bit like a fan page in parts. eπ/💬 16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Etothepi, So I need to change the language of this article, along with deleting copyrighted content?
AnuYog Yes please. eπ/💬 16:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Etothepi, Hey, Can you please re-review & approve the same? Thanks.

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Etothepi&oldid=932605451"