User talk:Nick Moyes

Geodorcus servandus

Thanks Nick for your excellent tips for the Geodorcus servandus page that I have been working on. I will make the changes suggested. Would love to see it on DYK, but unsure how...This kind of help is perfect for editors like myself who are fairly new to this. Much appreciated! Markanderson72 (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Markanderson72. (In my first museum job 30 years ago, the head curator was a coleopterist who had family in New Zealand. It was great to go round his house of an evening and see his collection of British and, especially, NZ beetles from his holidays. The Circulionidae rapidly became my favourite group.)

Regarding Did You Know, I'd be glad to help you. For some reason they've made the instructions almost as complex as creating your first article! So, be brave and do give it a go. Here are the formal formal instructions. Just worth skim-reading to start with, I'd suggest. And here is a much better set of easy to follow instructions. Here are my salient points I would tell beginners:

• You can only put an article forward for 'Did You Know' if it has been on Wikipedia for less than seven days - so the clock is now ticking! Your key date is 17th July - when you first started it.
• Find an interesting 'hook' in the article that people would be interested in. (If you want to, you can even suggest a second one as an ALTernative)
• Make sure there is a clear reference supporting every statement in the 'hook' - and that there's nothing else that's poorly referenced either, come to that.
• Newcomers can simply nominate their article (but anyone who has had over five articles on 'Did You Know' first has to review another person's DYK nomination (as a sort of quid pro quo, or QPQ))
• First you create a new template page just for your own nomination. You fill in the relevant details and save that page. This page is unique to your new nomination. Confusingly, you then paste the name of that page into the master list for all nominations, based on the date the article was started. i.e. 17th July.
• Ensure that you 'watch' your nomination page, and respond asap to any feedback. (Reviewers look for copyright violations, correct referencing, interesting hooks that are supported by references and are not too long, age of article, and so on)

It's a brilliant way to get new articles right up there on the front page of Wikipedia, and it often takes around 4 weeks from starting the process to it getting through the queue to go on the homepage. But, why they've made the instructions such a bastard to follow, I really don't know. Here are my suggested hooks you might consider:

• ... that the flightless stag beetle, Geodorcus servandus was discovered on the summit of just one mountain in New Zealand in 2017 and has been found nowhere else since...?
• ALT1 ... that the stag beetle, Geodorcus servandus is unable to fly, and so far is only known to occur on just one mountain top in New Zealand...?

Come back to me if you get stuck, or once you've managed it. I'll be glad to see how it goes and help out, if necessary. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, I think I managed to navigate the process -your help was superb! I pretty much used your very good hooks. Now I'll wait and see! Markanderson72 (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant. Just a couple of things - see if you can see how others have supported their nomination by including the source reference at the end (this makes the reviewers task easier in checking your nomination); and something has happened to your username as creator, which is now red-linked. (I think you missed the 72 off). If you also wanted to add a comment you could say that this is your first DYK nomination. It seems unfair for me to review it myself, so be prepared for some constructive criticism over the next couple of weeks. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that section - that was fantastic! This was one of the Geodorcus with least info available and its looking pretty good now. There is an image on the landcare website that I've added as an external link - I wasn't sure about the copyright - it looked like I could use it if attributed?? Thanks again, your help is very generous and welcome.Markanderson72 (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I was glad to help out by adding to the article to get it to minimum length. It's ok to link to an image in a reference, but not to copy and embed it, even with atrribution. If you really wanted it, you'd have to email her and ask her if she would be willing to supply you with an image and a release declaration for Wikimedia (but, to be honest, that is another complicated set of hoops to jump through at this stage) But what a superb monograph! You should definitely write an article on Beverley Holloway - her biography is brilliant - she would meet WP:GNG both as a scientific author naming a new species, for making a major contribution to the Fauna of New Zealand in that monograph, but especially as a recipient of the New Zealand 1990 Commemoration Medal. Married to a weevil expert, too - don't you just love her! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Markanderson72: I've just noticed a conflict of factual statements that you'll need to fix quickly. I've just spotted your addition that the beetle was discovered by Kettle in 2004 (which is not supported by the citation you've given), whereas I took the date of Dec 1960 from the monograph. (Specimens often go unnoticed for years after they've been collected before an expert studies them and erects a new species from that material) Someone at DYK will quickly shoot us down in flames if such an obvious error remains in place. Do have a good read through again and fact-check everything - it's nearly 3am here . . . I need some rest! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks- I was already wondering about the time! Yes, date was written 1960/12/04 and I was rushing! All the best from Marlborough!Markanderson72 (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pankaj Chandak

Hello! Your submission of Pankaj Chandak at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Nick Moyes, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 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 a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• 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) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Nick Moyes, 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)

Adminship

Hi, Nick. Have you ever thought about becoming an administrator? You have a good mix of writing and diplomacy skills, and you regularly get involved in new page patrols and deletion discussions, so I can see you would have a clear use. In particular, on your userpage, you write : "The timescales for deletion requests are ridiculously short. An uncontentious article can sit in mainspace for years, but if someone slaps an 'improve or delete notice on it, then we're given just seven days to put it right, or it's gone. Aren't we allowed holidays, or a week away from the computer?" I think this is an important point that a lot of regular editors miss (including myself, I have to admit), and you might therefore be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion or Wikipedia:Deletion review; people spend a lot of time seeing whether administrators are trustworthy over having the ability to delete articles, but comparatively little time is spend wondering about how well they restore them. It's for this reason I will restore any article (barring vandalism, libel or copyright violations) to at least userspace, and mention as such when you try to send a message to me. Anyway, have a think about it, and if it's something that interests you, let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ritchie333, thank you for stopping by with that suggestion. Thanks for your comments on my contributions, and I appreciate you asking me to consider picking up "the mop". Right now I don't believe my skills and understanding across all areas of Wikipedia, and of adminship, is sufficiently adequate to merit the role. A while back I did look at some RfAs - especially the failed ones - to see what the community expects from their admins, and to see what I could learn from them to improve my contributions and understanding. There have certainly been times (especially when dealing with ongoing vandalism or likely hoax content) that I would have dearly welcomed access to some of those tools. But then there are other areas (especially closing of complex discussions) where I've not envied the admins' role and responsibilities one bit. So, whilst I am potentially interested in contributing more effectively, it would seem sensible for me to delve a little deeper into the implications of adminship. (I would prefer to be a good editor than a bad admin.) Perhaps it would be best to get back to you in 6 months or so, and then perhaps discuss the merits of an WP:ORFA or any potential weaknesses in my skillset that you can identify that would be worth addressing. (Though do feel free to tell me some of those now, if you wish) Thanks again. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. My main motivation for seeking out potential admin candidates is to spread the load, and create less of an "us and them" atmosphere between admins and "normal" editors by getting as many people from the latter over to the former as possible. That you're interested, but not jumping at the opportunity to file an RfA is the right attitude to have, I think. I'm primarily here for the article writing and although I do procrastinate quite a bit (some might say too much) in the deletion queues, it's not the main activity. The best analogy I can come up with is to treat an RfA like an exam - you have to revise certain policies and procedures in order to pass, but you won't necessarily use all of them in day to day activities. I don't do much with file copyrights and I'm not interested in sockpuppet investigations; I think as long as you state areas you do want to work in, people ought to be able to trust you won't wander into other areas. Anyway, have a think about it, and if six months time you fancy going a candidate poll, I would say that's a good idea. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Bead painting

Dear Nick Moyes, thank You for editing article about bead painting. I created it not to show case my work, but to acknowledge the beautiful masterpieces of famous artists. Bead painting is unique, and very close adaptation of paintings. Because the tiny size of the beads finished work looks just like original paintings, but with added movement, because of the beauty of crystal beads. It's not mosaic, it takes up to a year to make one, every tiny seed bead is chosen from hundreds of thousands of colors. I just put it in wikipedia, because it is like creating monuments on the streets, people do it not to showcase their handy work, but for the Ones, who are displayed in monuments. I am not familiar with how and where to write to You, so if this is not the place, please delete it. I understand Your concern with the rules and etc. so if You believe "bead painting" article doesn't belong in wikipedia You can delete it. My desire was to add beauty, not to create disorder in the encyclopedia. Best Wishes, Elena Soldatkina.P.S. And I admire Your dedication to what You do. (comment left by Solcrust

Hi, @Solcrust: - don't worry about leaving comments in the wrong place - it's not easy to understand to begin with, so I've moved it for you. Thanks for replying to my concerns. It is very much appreciated, and I do understand what you say. It just that if it were seen as a worthwhile branch of art, I'm sure someone would have created such a page already. If you wanted to send me some urls to references I could look at them and try to see if they support the topic. Of course, I could put it forward for deletion and be overruled by consensus - that's how we work here. Either way, please don't be put off from editing. I do recommend you start with making some simple edits and improvements to existing articles - maybe on related art topics? Learning the right ways to edit here is a "one-step-at-a-time" process (and I'm still learning, myself). This might be worth a read: Wikipedia:Your first article Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank You Nick for trying to help me with how to go on with "bead painting" article. I appreciate Your help, but I just wished to get "it" :) out there. I am sort of a hermit doing just what I do. Researching, editing articles etc. is not my thing. So, I just let it be. Just one question :) If there is an animal in a jungle, that no one saw before, there are no articles about it, no information anywhere, does it mean it doesn't deserve place in an ... encyclopedia? :) I was just wondering. Wishing You All the Best. Elena.

OK, Elena. Thanks for replying so quickly. You ask a good question, and I would respond by saying that anyone can go into the jungle and see an insect new to science that absolutely no biologist has ever described before. The trick is being able to tell which one it is among the myriad of other species that are already known about, named and described. Does that one 'new' insect deserve an article right now on Wikipedia if it hasn't been named and described? The answer is 'no' - it's only after scientists have described that new species, and when there is published evidence that Wikipedia can call upon to present to the world, that a new page is then merited. We call this a reliable source. Anything else would just be made up and not warrant an article here (i.e. "I think I saw something green and flying with long legs that no-one has ever described before, so here goes...") . That's what other people's blogs and websites are for - flights of fancy and imagination. Here, we're trying to be encyclopaedic. With regard to art, it's really for the art community to determine what is notable. If they start to write at length on a subject, in multiple sources, then here on Wikipedia we can rightly refer to those writing, then maybe that topic will warrant a new article. But maybe not. And that's why you shouldn't be discouraged that I'm not confident about the merits of having this article here - it does nothing to detract from the quality of anyone's creative work. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Q

User:Artix Kreiger/Tekeda Alemu

In regards to this, is this good enough? Artix (Message wall) 23:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

To make it a worthy article I think you should extract more information about him from the UN Press Release -especially past and present roles. It's easily done, so long as you use your own words and don't copy verbatim what's said. I see you've now put int in mainspace - I won't review it until you've had a chance to work on it a bit more.

Go search for some basic information on Google. Try this for starters. It also needs better Categories. Check other diplomats in the UN and see what categories they've been given - that should assist you. By contrast here's a biography I put online this morning from my sandbox - yours doesn't have to be that long, but it does need to do you credit by having a a bit more meat on the bones, if you know what I mean. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Churchill County School District

I just published this. Artix (Message wall) 13:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Jennifer Gunter

Hi! Thanks for reviewing Jennifer Gunter. I am glad you found it satisfactory. I have added several categories, as you suggested.

Thanks for your work!

Robincantin (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Parasites

Hi, thanks for getting back to me. I'm glad you saw me and helped set me straight a bit. I've been around for a while, yes, and although I've never been much of a content editor, I read Wikipedia a lot and can tell the difference between a helpful article and one that needs a lot of work. I got the sense myself that my edits yesterday weren't entirely up to par and that's why I left the preemptive message on my talkpage.

In short, I ran out of time. I'm moving tomorrow and I'll only have Internet through my phone for the indefinite future, and I wanted to get in as many edits as I could before I had to start packing. My plan was to pare down the section on the Fish reproduction article and expand the Sexual parasitism article by adding information about species other than anglerfish. For example, some species of barnacles, such as those in the rhizocephala genus, have the exact same reproduction process in which the male never feeds independently, but instead fuses with a far larger female and draws its nourishment from her. Something similar may be the case in Sarcotaces, another crustacean, but I can't find publicly available sources.

Finding information on the crustaceans will be more difficult than it was for the anglerfish, and I don't know when I'll have normal Internet access again, so I won't be able to finish those articles for a while. But I do plan to revive Sexual parasitism as a full article and explain that it isn't unique to the anglerfish. However, it does seem to be true that the anglerfish is the only example of this mode of reproduction existing in an animal that is not also parasitic in the traditional way, and that makes them unique, which is perhaps why they are the most written-about.

Thank you again for your reply. I hope to be back again soon so I can finish what I started. —Soap— 02:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for getting back to me. Don't forget you can always change back the page from a redirect to one with new content if you do want to expand it again later on. Definitely something worth doing in draft first, and maybe even discussing on the existing article's Talk Page. Sorry you'll only have mobile acces - I hate editing from a phone (as I am right now). Good luck with your move. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Improvements to page Wilbertomorphidae

Hello Nick: Thanks for your thoughtful comments and suggestions! I've clarified that the family is monotypic, and made a redlink to "marine interstitial habitat" instead. Looks like the pages on benthos and related topics can also be considerably expanded. Cheers, Kbseah (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant. I agree that Interstitial habitat is worthy of its own article, but I suggest you drop 'marine' from the redlink. I think a new article ought to cover both marine and freshwater environments together. Keep up the good work! Nick Moyes (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

How to merge ?

How to merge ?

The two articles relate to the same building. Images and historical information (providing it is supported by reliable third party sources could be added as a new 'history' section to the Petersburg City Hall page. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC) U.S.Customhouse & Post Office, Petersburg, VA to Petersburg City Hall. Do I just add header 'History' and add mine ?- -Thanks, Tommyboymee Tommyboymee (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, just make a new section header and put in your contents (with references, of course). Make sure images are small thumbs - they dont need references (just captions). I'd be happy to check it out once you've done it, and set up the redirect for you. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, @Tommyboymee:, I've done all I can do to the article. You'll see I've removed surplus images and laid out the page as per Wikipedia's Manual of Style guidelines. There was too much text in one block, so I've created two sections and moved stuff around to fit. I've also created the WP:REDIRECT. I can do no more for you. What I'd like you to undertake to do is to go through, read every paragraph, checking it against this reference] to make sure everything said is actually in the source. Each paragraph needs a reference in my opinion. If you use the Edit Source tab you'll see how easy it is to copy and past the short version, i.e.: "<ref name=VAnom/>" when you want to repeat a reference. Hope this helps and makes sense. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

November editathons from Women in Red: Join us!

		Welcome to Women in Red's November 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest|The Women in Red World Contest]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Nick Moyes, 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)

Teahouse

Hello Nick Moyes,

I am quite active as a Teahouse host, and I just noticed your answer regarding videos. Very informative and clearly written. Thanks a lot, and please pitch in at the Teahouse any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that feedback and invitation. I did think I would start to help out at the Teahouse where I can as I've recently come to appreciate what a useful resource the Question Archive page is for randomly dipping into and learning interesting stuff I didn't know. I do have a couple of questions about its current operation, though:

• Is there any way of telling how many 'hosts' or helpers are active at any one time, or, put another way, of seeing what the current latency is in responding to questions? I watched your video presentation about the Teahouse and you commented on quiet times. In UTC terms do you know when help is needed most to pitch in to cover those quieter periods?
• A few times recently I've drafted a first response to a question, only to find another editor has posted their own reply first, and in an identical manner, so I threw my efforts away. Is there any method in operation whereby one editor can leave, effectively, an "I've got this!" flag, before then drafting and posting that first reply? It struck me that other helpers could, as it were, 'stand down' and just wait a bit to see if they actually need to add anything to the forthcoming reply.

I hope that makes sense. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense but I do not have very good answers for you. Since we do not log into the Teahouse specifically, but rather to Wikipedia as a whole, I do not think that there is a way to identity which hosts are "active". I stay logged in for weeks at a time and come and go frequently and work on all sorts of things other than the Teahouse. But, I admit that data analysis is not my strong suit and perhaps a good coder could develop a system to have the information that you want. I have not heard any complaints about unusually slow responses at various times of the day.

As for other hosts "beating" us to answering, that has happened to me many times and I have gotten used to it. I suppose that a template saying something like "answer forthcoming" could be written. The situation you describe just motivates me to write concisely and promptly when I see a fresh question.

I suggest that you raise these issues at Talk: Teahouse to see what other hosts think. Thank you for watching my Teahouse video. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nick Moyes, I just wanted to mention that your response on Teahouse (here) is one of the kindest and best-phrased answers to an angry and frustrated editor that I have seen. Nicely done, Leschnei (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Requesting to restore the page Syed Hasan Askari (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Hasan_Askari)

Dear Nick Moyes: First of all, thank you so much for promptly fixing the editing issues in reference section on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Hasan_Askari earlier.

This page has been recently deleted due to potential copyright issue per the message received from primefac at wikimedia commons below. . In reality, I also created the FB page of https://www.facebook.com/professorsyedhasanaskari therefore it should not be in violation of copyright. I have reached out to primefac at wikimedia commons and teahouse in this regard and  waiting for the response but havent seen a response yet.

I was wondering if you would be able to restore the page Syed Hasan Askari (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syed_Hasan_Askari) at your earliest possible convenience. Please advise. Thanks in advance!

Reference: Wikimedia Commons <wiki@wikimedia.org> Primefac‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪File:1. Prof Askari 05 09 2016.jpg‬". ‬ File:1. Prof Askari 05 09 2016.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons This page has been deleted. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference. • 16:22, 2 November 2017 Primefac (talk | contribs) deleted page Syed Hasan Askari (G11, G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.facebook.com/professorsyedhasanaskari/posts/1744203005801902:2 (TW)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedahmerraza (talk • contribs)

Hello, @Syedahmerraza:. I'm afraid I am not an Administrator, so I have no powers to restore a deleted page. But even if I were one, this would not be an appropriate thing to do without very good reason. However, there are two possible ways forward. I assume you understand why the page was speedily deleted? (because we cannot allow text to be taken from other sites as it would be a breach of copyright). If you maintain the website or facebook page from which the text was taken (and assuming that you wrote it and that it was not copied from somewhere else) I would advise you to go and add a very clear and unequivocal statement which releases the text under a Creative Commons licence. This one would be ideal. I have done a similar thing on a blog that I manage (look at the very bottom of this page to see wording I have used). Having done that, you could then request the adminstrator to reviewtheir decision for deletion, because you can now show the text has been freely-released text. Provided there are no other reasons (such as notability, reliable sources etc), an administrator might be willing to reinstate the page for you to continue working on - maybe as a draft in your userspace.

Another way would be to start again in your sandbox by drafting a completely new article using very different wording, not close paraphrasing. I should say that I didn't read the article closely before it was deleted. My quick impression was that it was probably too long and might not actually have demonstrated 'notability' from reliable third party sources. Obviously I can't check that now, but it is also important to avoid so-called 'conflict of interest. So, if you are very close to the subject, or work for them or their organisation, it would be inadvisable to try to make an article about them. Your account does not appear to have been involved in creating or editing the deleted page (or much else), but I would suggest you might want to learn a little more about editing and creating new articles first. Have you read Wikipedia:Your first article? This is a great place to start -and whatever you do, don't operate more than one account to edit Wikipedia as this can lead to all accounts being blocked. (I am not suggesting you are doing this, but some editors do get tempted by this idea, and it's not advisable). I hope this has made some sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Bryx editing

Hi Nick! Thanks for looking at my Bryx articles (and for sending me cookies). I tried to make the edits you suggested, but had a couple problems.

First, I couldn't figure out how to put the subcategory (list of least concern fishes) as a category at the end of the article. Do I have so somehow link it to the "IUCN Red List least concern species"?

Second, I had trouble putting the species synonym into the taxobox. Is there a specific place where the synonym should go? It doesn't seem to show up wherever I put it.

Thanks again! I'm very new to Wikipedia, so sorry if these questions are very simple.

Cheers,

Harrytudor (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're doing absolutely fine. Every new step here is part of a learning curve, and I can answer both questions eaily for you. Right now I'm on a mobile, which makes it harder to do. I'll ping you a message when I've left a follow-up reply here from my laptop. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Xylotrupes socrates

Hi Nick! The revision is very complicated since the revisions by Rowland (2003, 2011) include 28 valid species and ~60 valid taxa. Both revisions are available on the Web, but Rowland and Silvestre published further papers (with further species) not available. The complex of species has been updated with the correct distribution in BioLib (https://www.biolib.cz/en/taxontree/id98023/). I will fix the remaining problems in the next days. But, first of all, a lot of species are wrongly identified on Wikimedia.--Vitalfranz (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I wonder if your very valid comments are at least worth adding to the Talk Page of Xylotrupes. Yes, I often do worry about IDs of images on Commons. We make such a fuss about reliable sources for text content, but there's no peer review of species names attached to photos at all. (We could do with the equivalent of Coll. & Det. fields, as this has long concerned me. Do feel free to add comments or concerns to any image on Commons - though this could well be a vast task in itself! Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Nick Moyes! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 20:14, Sunday, November 5, 2017 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Ciconia lydekkeri

Dear Nick Moyes, thanks for reviewing the article. The source that mentions the possible synonymy of Ciconia lydekkeri and C. maltha is the 2009 paper by Federico Agnolin that I used as reference.

Best regards, Nascimentors (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying that. You'll see I've made a slight modification to the article in the light of your reply. Hope I've got the balance about right as there seemed to be some uncertainty whether maltha is a synonym or not. Feel free to re-edit as you think best. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Celtic swimming

FYI SPI [1] Rhadow (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. See this diff and this self-pub http://www.lulu(DOT)com/shop/lepota-l-cosmo/micro-topology-with-some-insightful-remarks-on-topophenomena/ebook/product-23298320.html. See also this diff followed by this diff for the same self-pub.

@Rhadow: I think you should also add 109.93.109.25 to the SPI. I've just found this diff to a made-up wordpress blog, masquerading as a journal here and this self pub: (http://www.lulu(DOT)com/shop/lepota-l-cosmo/water-volleyball-rise-of-the-game-with-some-xxi-century-us-clubs-practices/ebook/product-23243308.html. Three references to a pseudo-journal blog in this diff and this diff. There may well be more, and I have no confidence that any of the content added is reliable. The website LULU is blacklisted, so I could only post the links by inserting (DOT) - you know what to do. I also see that another articles has been put forward for deletion. If proven - maybe a case to revert all edits. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I did something wrong in the SPI report. I don't know what. The clerk said it was an invasion of privacy. :^(
Rhadow (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello Rhadow and Nick: FYI the CheckUsers usually won't check IP addresses because they can be used to connect accounts to physical locations and possibly "out" the editors. See Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser and privacy policy and WP:HSOCK. I agree though that the Celtic Swimming page is very odd and probably should be deleted. Cheers, Kbseah (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I must confess that I am not yet familiar with the guidance for lodging an WP:SPI, or how the process operates in detail, though I notice a clear statement that "CheckUsers will not publicly connect an account with an IP address per the privacy policy except in extremely rare circumstances". So I think a CU was declined for that reason, but it does sound that a behavioural investigations might be conducted by a clerk into how the account has acted. That flag appears on other CU-declined pages, so I'm sure it relates to their behavior, not yours (fear not). One always has to be careful of not WP:OUTING another user, so I did think carefully about suggesting a link between the user name and the author - but I think the similarity of one to the other is unlikely to be coincidence, so the linkage was effectively self-declared, hence my COI. That many edits have been made for promo purposes was a conclusion I came to some weeks ago over other edits made. Others seemed just, well, fabricated, whilst a few did seem quite legit. Regards, (Oh, and thanks for your input here, too, Kbseah. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Dolphin pink

Hi. I've tagged the section on Dolphin pink as disputed, fwiw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Shawn in Montreal - there's something very weird going on with this editor and their alleged socks. (See previous topic on my talk page as just one example.) And here's a diff showing how 'Dolphin pink' first arrived in this world. If one does the research on Boto dolphins, as I did in September, it's clear they are immensely variable in colour, so the choice of RGB had to have been a random RGB cursor selection off a randomly chosen photo. Irritating to say the least - I should have AfD-ed, not PRODed it. I've got it on my list to clean out and to RfD the Boto pink page. Just taking it one step at a time. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Right. Well, he seems to have quieted down a little now. I'm sure we can clean up the issues via deletion. Not all of his edits and creations have been problematic: Byzantine blue seems to actually exist, per RS, fwiw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

That's true, which makes it even odder, unless its to support and bolster his self-publication work. (I'd thought about going to my local decorating store and finding some paint colour charts and writing an article on every single one of the weirdly named colour-swatches. But why would one even bother) Nick Moyes (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Signature Edit test

test 4 Nick Moyes 13:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC) test 3 Nick Moyes 13:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC) test 5 Nick Moyes 13:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Back to normal? test 4 Nick Moyes (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC) test 3Nick Moyes (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC) test 514:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Michael Proctor

Nick, I'm sorry to have been the unwitting messenger of distressing news to you. As it happens I was at Exeter too and have very happy memories of it, but I never came across this, evidently very distinguished and wonderful, man because I was a classicist. I just added the entry in the interests of completeness and his death seemed to have been missed so far, although it was some weeks ago now. Richard.Rcb1 (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)rcb1Rcb1 (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Not at all - I am extremely grateful to you, though still somewhat upset. When were you at Exeter? I was there '76-'79. In fact I'm just writing to the BioScience Department at Exeter to express my condolences, and to ask if they might have any images they could release to me for Creative Commons/OTRS, not only of Michael Proctor, but also of our prof at the time, mycologist John Webster - both of whom I felt were sufficiently notable to merit pages here. Regards. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nick, if you haven't seen it already, I'm sure you will want to see this obituary of Michael Proctor in The Guardian today. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/15/michael-proctor-obituary. I was at Extere from 1983 to 1986, by the way. Best wishes, Richard. Rcb1 (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)rcb1

Thanks you, Rcb1. I've been away and hadn't seen that, but will use it to upgrade his entry in due course. Meanwhile I have heard back from the BioSciences Dept at Exeter University, and they're investigating who owns the copyright on at least one of the pictures they have of him on their website, and they may be able to trace more. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Talita Fontoura Alves

Can you find a link to the mentioned article? I'm having trouble finding it. –Vami_IV✠ 21:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Uploading images

Nick, thank you for your reply but I cannot see the links you refer to? FRAS (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear, @FRAS: - that's very weird. I presume you mean you can't see the "Use this file" links? The file itself is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bidirectional_AWS.jpg And the links to use this file should be millimetres above the upper edge of the image itself. All I can think is that you're not opening the full page, but have only a preview open. Is there a big blue button visible in lower right to "More Details", or something similar? If so, I suspect you have one of your User Preferences set in the 'Appearance' tab to have Media Viewer enabled by default. (The tick box is at the very bottom of the Appearances page, and you need to deselect it. The text you actually want is [[File:Bidirectional AWS.jpg|thumb|Bidirectional AWS]] Let me know what you are seeing, and how you get on with this. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Paul (Pavel) Vasilyevich Krotkov

Hi Nick. My name is Bill Moses BTW. I am not sure if you would know that. There are many variations in names relating to Moses, Moss, Moyses, Moise and so on. Yours is pretty close (smile). Gleb Krotkov does have a Wiki page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleb_Krotkov. I really would appreciate your guidance. It will take me a while to find my way around things Wikipedia. (I am the kind of guy who tries to assemble something without reading the instructions.) Part of the problem is I am starting out with what appears to be a complicated subject. I have made contact with a person from www.russiangrave.ru. I have provided her with Paul's date of death, where he is buried and information about Gleb (who is not in their index). She said that she could help getting info about Paul. I will let you know what she has to say. I will move the draft to my sandbox and you can feel free to edit it. There is a lot of info about Christina in the reference you sent.. She did visit Paul in the period 33-36 and played a piano or something I believe for a local woman's institute. I would have to look back through my notes.

TTYL→

Bill  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosesos (talk • contribs) 22:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bill. It's a pleasure to meet you here. Yes, I see many forms of our surname. I was told mine originated from East Anglia where there is a Moyes' Hall at Bury St Edmunds. Regarding Krotkov, I've made a few suggestions in your draft for the sort of layout/structure you should aim for. Unfortunately, if you do like just to get stuck in, and not "read the manual", you might well find Wikipedia editing won't suit you. We have policies and guidelines for every day of the week! Creating even a simple article from scratch is not something any of us would ever recommend to a complete newcomer. Try reading WP:YourFirstArticle to set you off on the right track. One key thing to say is do please avoid writing an article based on original research you've done. (See WP:OR). Treat an encyclopaedia article here more as a distillation of what's already out there, supported by references. Drop me another line if or when °you want me to take a look at anything. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

My Moses people are from the Isle of Wight. I have been to Bury St Edmunds and saw the Moses Hall building, a gift shop or a small museum as I remember. I asked inside about the origin of the name and they said they didn't know. The building went back to the 1200's I believe. I am now told that Paul Krotkov was not a Professor in Russia. Rather he was an activist of some kind, from age 20, he spent 17 years in and out of Moscow University. I have to conclude that he is not notable enough to deserve a page on Wikipedia. You are correct in stating that if I want to publish on Wikipedia I will have to become much more disciplined. I should perhaps pick a simpler subject as well, at least to start with. I have decided instead to write a non-technical article on the history of botanizing on the Bruce Peninsula while I bone up on Wikipedia requirements. We will find out if you can teach an old dog new tricks. TTYL Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosesos (talk • contribs) 15:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

WiR December highlights

		Welcome to Women in Red's December 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/61|"Seasonal celebrations"]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/62|"First Ladies"]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/63|"Go local!"]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]] Remember the World Contest closes on Thursday, 30 November
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Seabirds of Goa

Hi Nick,

I am a new user in terms of contributing to Wiki. I am still getting a hang of things. For my page on Seabirds of Goa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_seabirds_of_Goa I used information from List of Birds of India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_of_India I have been told by another Wiki reviewer to give attribution, however I am unsure how to do it. It might take a wile for me to get a hang of wiki system, so if you could please help me.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titan2ae (talk • contribs) 12:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Don't worry - we all have to start somewhere. I didn't at first spot that this goes back to July 2017 when both I and another editor left comments on your Talk page about the new article you created. It looks like Diannaa has already added information in the edit log on the View History page, which is where you can explain where you're copied something over from another Wikipedia page or pages. So, really, I think that's sorted. However, I think there's a bigger issue you must clarify.

The source you use (Baidya, et al.) clearly states the list of 25 species is a checklist of all species seen around Goa, including rare wind-blown visitors such as Sterna repressa. It looks just to be open ocean species. My suggestion is that you unequivocally state that this is a checklist, correct to 2017, based on that publication, and using their definitions. That would give your list greater veracity. In my professional opinion (as someone who has pubclished defintive species lists) the need to clarify what is included and what is excluded is critical to the use of any list. Your list is clearly only open species. You shouldn't fall into the trap - as you have done- of attempting a new definition of what a seabird is. Just explain how that term is used here to compile this list, so users can understand why it's not including coastal and inland seabirds and not start adding entries of their own. You might even like to consider whether you've given it the most effective title. How about List of seabirds of the open ocean around Goa? I would suggest you start the article more clearly, too. Then add the information about history of research afterwards. Here's an idea to get you started. You will need to go back to Baidya and clarify details yourself:

This List of seabirds of the open ocean around Goa is a checklist of all seabird species seen over the open ocean off the coast of the Indian island of Goa up to 2017. It is based on a definitive list of 25 species, published in 2017 (ref). It includes ..INSERT DETAILS......  ; it excludes those seabird species which are found both on the coast and inland

What I normally see on "Lists of species of..." pages is wholly incomplete data, totally unsortable by the user, not based on any reliable source and with no scientific name - usually just one local version of a common name, meaning many people won't even recognise them by that name. These List pages really look like vanity pages by the creator, with a few pictures and useless for anything else unless they're proven to be fully complete, and based on definitive works. Luckily yours does appear to be complete. Pleasingly, your page is so short that you are unlikely to fall into that trap, and I'm delighted you included scientific names. What few editors ever seem willing to do here (you included) is create a single data table that allows sorting by scientific name, common name, or family/group name. That really would make a useful online tool for readers. To do that, you'd need to get rid of the bullet points and trivial waffle about families - that can be found elsewhere and create a sortable table. Not the easiest task, but it could be worth it! Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Pings

Hi. Just to let you know, in case you didn't already, that this won't have notified the editor you tried to ping. Pings are only triggered when a username is linked to in the same edit that you sign. See Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I didn't think it would ping them with a follow-up edit. It was more a case of remembering my manners, though I should have thought it through. I'll drop the user a personal note. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Nor this one. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Grrr! Thanks David. I recognise I still have a lot to learn here, and must sit down and wade through Wikipedia:Notifications in detail. Talk page messaging is one of the most frustrating of processes on Wikipedia for me, I think. I have just found WP:PINGFIX, so will try and gain another skill and correct my edit. I really appreciate your feedback. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Hello, I'm Saqib. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kulsoom Nawaz Sharif have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Saqib (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Saqib: I think you meant to leave that level 1 warning for Nh315, not me. I changed one letter, and this is my edit summary: (Randomly fixing recent typos with Lupins spellchecking tool: febuary->February) (I do accept I hadn't spotted the day number was invalid - which I probably should have - but that wasn't down to my typo-fixing edit with WP:Lupin). Sorry if I sound defensive -it's normally me that leaves the warnings, and this is the first such one I've ever received in 7 years and 25,000+ edits. Keep up the good work. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)  

Possibility of providing your input on a Peer Review for Regine Velasquez's entry

Hi Nick,

I'm writing to ask whether you would consider having a look at the article. I'm aware that you've been involved with a few PRs before. I've given it a major rewrite and complete overhaul. I began working on the article late October when it looked like this and somehow ended up rewriting the whole thing and aiming for potentially FA. This isn't a process I've been through before, but I have been reading the reviews here in preparation, and am familiar with FAC demands. I would very much appreciate a fresh set of eyes and happily address any concerns you may have.

Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying, Pseud 14. I've added a few hasty suggestions to Wikipedia:Peer review/Regine Velasquez/archive1. I apologise they're a bit curt-sounding. You've not done a bad job, but I hope my feedback might steer you into ways to strip down a lot of the unnecessary content, as I think it's really much too long-winded as it stands. I din't find any gross errors apart from the vast amount of over-linking you've included. Hope this helps you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nick Moyes. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

NGC articles

Hi Nick,

thank you for your useful comments! I will update the "NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database" references for my NGC articles with more specific links, as you suggested.

All best,

Felix558 (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries, Felix. You clearly know your subject, so I was really hoping my feedback didn't come across as overly-critical or off-putting for a new editor.  I do hope you enjoy your time contributing here. Any problems, just ask us at the Teahouse. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

(Axel Timmermann) article

Thanks for reviewing my new page and giving suggestions as how to make it better. I really appreciate your feedback. Have a great day, mate! ₪RicknAsia₪ 04:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Required vs desired

Hi, Nick Moyes. Thank you for your edits to the new article Women in Red. I was wondering about this edit where you state that changing edits from red to blue is "required". Can you please rationalize that? Required seems like an overstatement. Thank you again. Ping me back. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for raising that - I think you're right. In trying to remove the ambiguous use of the word 'desired' (which could wrongly have suggested a lustful approach to notable women), I'd not intended to mean that pages on notable women were essential (i.e. required). I've shortened the lead to: Women in Red is a WikiProject within that site, focusing effort to create articles about notable women that do not currently exist there. I hope this sounds a lot better than either of the previous versions. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Creeping Willow has been accepted

Creeping Willow, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse Bug

Nick, In response to your inquiryJava Bug, the system I am using is:

• Linux Mint 18 Sarah
• firefox 55.0.2+linuxmint1+sonya amd64

Regards,

Paul Flint — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flintiii (talk • contribs) 13:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Nick Moyes, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• 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) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I do find myself wondering

just what "helping to ring chicks" refers to? Wikipedians do have inquiring minds. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Carptrash.  Good question! The Wikipedia answer is bird ringing, but if it'll allow me to post it, here's a little video I made showing a bit of what we get up to in our peregrine falcon conservation project: https://youtu(DOT)be/HjcHdUnVQ9I.

I'm glad we could help you at the Teahouse today - I had to make a quick guess at the best headings for you. That, I think, was the key issue - far too much text before the first heading, because the contents box is automatically created and positioned after the lead, and oriot to the first heading. Regards, 22:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Nick Moyes (talk)

" because the contents box is automatically created and positioned after the lead" I shall try to remember this, it could be useful. Also, if you will pardon me and no disrespect intended, my imaginary version of "chick ringing" was more interesting. Carptrash (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear, Einar, I shall never be able to think of that phrase in the same way again! ("LOL", as they say these days, or "HI" as we used to say in my ham radio days). Your question prompted me to consider adding a few more wikilinks to my user page. I've just meandered my way across yours, which I found both enlightening and challenging! Regards Nick Moyes (talk)

"Enlightening and challenging" are both nice compliments, thank you. When I started at wikipedia an editor told me that there was no place for humor here. I have made it a primary goal of mine to prove him (had to be a "him") wrong. Carptrash (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing an article's eligibilty using the automatic translator

Hi Nick,

I think that what you've suggested to do in relation to the page about me is a good idea; before I open up a discussion on Wikipedia's Articles for Deletion page, I'll leave it to your discretion to review the sources on my article; however, I read the notability guidelines, and I believe that I do actually qualify for Wikipedia notability, based on what I read there (I certainly hope, at least). In any case, please let me know what the outcome is, if only for peace of mind, since as the date of this message, the article has been up for almost a week and may be vulnerable to deletion.

Thanks for your help and advice,

Dr8ator (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not going to rush on any WP:AFD submission, as my impression is that you've acted very responsibly here. Recently I put forward an article there which I suspected would be retained, but sometimes testing the waters and seeking consensus is itself a worthwhile exercise. Please do not feel under any obligation whatsoever, but should you wish to spell out the criteria under which you feel you meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians you may do so. I genuinely try to be a neutral observer here - I'm very happy to defend an article's retention, but am just as OK in proposing it for deletion if I think it fails. It's nothing personal - just an attempt to apply our guidelines equitably. Kind regards (and seasonal greetings) from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you so much in helping the community in changing {{int:savearticle}} to {{int:publishchanges}} all over the help and Wikipedia namespaces. Moxy (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick, for your comments on my wiki draft "Patients' and public involvement" (which title I plan to change to keep up)

I appreciate all you've done and shall hope to address the whole thing again within a month.

It's my first wiki entry, so please forgive signs of naivety; the same applies in this response. The subject is very important and I would be devastated if the entry were deleted without warning as you imply sometimes happens!

Season's greetings, Nick, and many thanks again - Eric Eric Deeson (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, Eric. It took me a whole year before I felt I knew enough to create my first article - and that's a really hard task to achieve straight off. I'd urge you to find the evidence that supports our concept of Notability by means of references that show PPI is a signficant NHS/healthcare inititiative, and just stick to reporting in a neutral manner, based purely on this sources, no matter what you know personally. I'm just working on stripping out a bit more for you, and removing some the emboldening which we don't use in article (even though I quite like keywords being highlighted), and hope you can add to it before someone does think it's worth putting up for a deletion discussion. (That can be quite upsetting when you know something is important)

In future, might I recommend that you either work up any new article in your own personal sandbox (there's a link at top of page), or create it as a draft, in readiness for submitting to Articles for Creation. I'm working on another UK governemnt initiative right now (see Draft:National_Pollinator_Strategy) It's a total mess at the moment; I started with putting in the references and am now slowly assembling the contents based on those. It'll only get deleted if a) it sits in draft form, untouched by me for 6 months or more, or b) if I paste in coyright violoation material that someone spots and takes a dislkie to. (I actually do paste in little bits of copyvio stuff from articles, but then immediately redo them in my own, neutral words immediately afterwards!) I hope this helps, and that you enjoy your journey here, contributing to the worlds greatest free encyclopaedia.

Let me know if you have problems renaming the article, and I'll try to assist. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Nick, for your friendly, understanding and helpful encouragement. I especially like the idea of drafting a new article away from wiki itself, using the sandbox or (I assume you mean) Word. Surely the latter, and presumably the former, means people like you can't contribute to the growth of the thing? So I hope you'll allow me to continue to work where I currently am.

One point, if I may: I used the term "health / care" to cover "medical care, public health, and social care" (as noted in the second line). You have changed it to "healthcare" which covers only medical care. So I shall revert if that's OK.

Last, you imply that changing the title is not straight forward (understandably). I'd like you, therefore, to change it to "Public involvement (PI) in health / care research", please. The new terminology is sanctioned by use by NIHR and INVOLVE, the two main responsible bodies in the UK.

Apologies for the non-encyclopedic style: PI is my third full-time career (as a post-retirement volunteer) and it and its many problems excite me hugely! I'll try to hide my passion and bubbles in future!

Thanks again for what you've done and are doing, Nick, and best wishes for great 2018. Eric Deeson (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Eric. Nice to hear from you. Please don't feel I was telling you how to work in future. And it was fine to revert my use of 'healthcare'.  You are right -working in Word would be very off-wiki. Working in a sandbox is often the best way to draft something at your leisure. Even a sandbox is publicly viewable. No other editor would normally work on it, though you can invite others to contribute if you wished. Regarding the title change, may I suggest you put the proposal on the article's talk page? Give it a week or so for input or consensus from others to be sought. (I'd suggest you use 'and' instead of '/'). Then give me another shout and I'll move it for you if you wish. On a different note, you might be interested in this article: Mental health inequality which also needs wikifying and turning away from being like an essay. Have a great 2018. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Patrols

Hi, respected Nick Moyes, I asked you few days ago something regarding patrols in Teahouse. You talked something about bots. I didn't understand it then. Can you please again make me understand about that thing. My doubt is that my statistic page shows that I have Zero patrols, but I have edited many random articles and corrected many typos, as I am a Random page patroller and typo patroller. You can reply on my talk page. Souravdas1998 (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Nick Moyes (talk)

Hello

Can you help me learn about Wikipedia and also help me with my family articles I don’t want to violthe coi but many people here have not been kind unfortunately every word matters in these kind of articles I have an art history background thanks for your patience Flamingoflorida (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Flamingoflorida. I'm always happy to help any editor if I can, providing they're willing to listen and learn. That's why I now help out at the Teahouse. Problem is, my friend, I don't see that you are willing to do that. In your case I urge you to CEASE ALL EDITING of articles. Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to go back and read and act on all the advice I and others have given you. Read the guidelines; read the policies - that's not an impossible mission. Your account will self-destruct if you do not (though not necessarily in 10 seconds!) You now know that I personally think you should be topic-banned or blocked from editing completely as you are a major and very irritating disruption to the voluntary efforts of numerous editors here, who you have annoyed immensely by your actions and failure to listen to guidance or to the wishes of the community here. Step back from all editing and learn how to behave here. See WP:HELP as a good starting point.

Of course, if you have a particular question on how to undertake a specific technical task, I or my fellow editors at the Teahouse will be happy to point you to the right guidelines or instructions for you to follow and act on. However, I'm not prepared to be at your beck and call to hone up a load of articles to meet your personal interests. So don't even think about leaving me loads of waffle about what minor changes you want making to another Reconati-related article so as to polish up your wealthy family's image here on Wikipedia. It pains me to sound so unhelpful and blunt to any editor, but you've disgraced yourself enough in that respect for me not to want to assist you in anything other than technical editing matters. I trust this is clear. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

What does the wealth of the family have to do with anything we did not ask for any public articles and have never promoted here we only want if there must be an article that it is clear neutral and that is completely accurate disgrace is a very strong word. I find that people ideas about wealth bias everything so many things stay that would be removed in any other article.Flamingoflorida (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaargh! What did I just ask! No, don't answer that. Just don't! Nick Moyes (talk)

Teahouse

Thank you for your creative message of Christmas cheer! Blessings of the season on you and yours; and a heartfelt thanks for all you do at Teahouse. John from Idegon (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you John. I'm very new to helping out there, but am finding it a really great way to assist new editors and to learn from even more experienced editors how best to work with Wikipedia. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

For your enjoyment

Hello NM. I too enjoyed User:Nick Moyes/The Night Before Wikimas. You might enjoy File:4th Wiseman.jpg that was created by the very same Carptrash whose talk page post lead me to your creative poem. It was part of my Xmas card a couple years ago. Thanks for the smile and enjoy the rest of your 20187. MarnetteD|Talk 02:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, MarnetteD. enjoy the rest of your 2018.? Ye gads, that's worrying. So little time left for editing!!! Glad you liked the poem. and thanks for your posts here. I might well use that image. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Gadzooks where is my proofreader. Oh that is right I gave them the rest of the year off :-) Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 03:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 02:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a couple days late but I thought you might enjoy it as well. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Atsme. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Caroline Todd (Green Wing), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

^{Atsme📞📧} 15:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

New Year's resolution: Write more articles for Women in Red!

		Welcome to Women in Red's January 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/64|"Prisoners"]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/65|"Fashion designers"]] New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/66|"Geofocus: Great Britain and Ireland"]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Nick Moyes, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Cruz del Campo article

Hello, they are not identical articles one is about of a pilgrim route ending in that building and the other of a wayside cross i mean of a building in itself--ILoveCaracas (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Ok, my apologies if that's the case. Feel free to revert me then, but do please put a disambiguation notice at the top of both pages, and make sure the leads are very clear. Do you need help to do that? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

i dont how to disambigute. Thanks for that--ILoveCaracas (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, happy to help. It's rather late right now and I got a bit side-tracked tonight. So if I forget to come back and sort it out in the next few days (I early next year!), feel free to give me a shout here again. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Defiant Women's and Hardcore Championship

What is your deal with the Defiant Women's and Hardcore Championship can you take the deletion tag out and will put to redirect to the defint wrestling page back again???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCorageone1 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

There's no "deal" as you call it. I'm just new page reviewing, and had encountered three out of many other non-notable pages which I feel serve only to promote some entertainment company or other. There is far too much abuse of Wikipedia of this sort, whether for BLPs, companies or events, so I propose to let the AFD run its course. I haven't checked your page, but if you have a WP:COI or receive payment for putting this stuff together, I hope you've declared it. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Defiant titles

Can i put the titles as redirect page and remove this delete discussion??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCorageone1 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheCorageone1. Forgive me, I'm a little busy right now to reply to your question with an explanation, having just received quite unacceptable abuse from an editor, possibly linked to this matter. (User:86.154.214.255) So I'm busy ensuring that they (and of course any registered user account linked to it) are blocked from editing Wikipedia. So I think no, for now, until this matter is resolved. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Defiant titles

so when you finished can you do what i asked??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCorageone1 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It would save time if you were kind enough to answer a direct question for me: As a result of these three recent WP:AFD proposals, have you in any way been involved in sending or encouraging an offensive and abusive message to be sent to me? I don't take kindly to such actions and would rather deal with it quickly now, and with a lower-level warning, than have to ask an admin to investigate. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk)

Yes and you deserve it for talking crap. Don't worry. It's off my chest now and I'm gone. Admins are all ruleswankers with no common sense. Goodbye.

OK, I appreciate your honesty, but an apology from you for being so unbelievably aggressive and utterly offensive towards me might have been nice. Oh, and by the way, I'm not an admin - just a volunteer who thinks this place is worth keeping in a good state. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I apologise but this site is the problem because it is in downward spiral and likes of you waste your time. It is an atrocious site with unreliable content, some of it dangerous nonsense, and it is dominated by said ruleswankers who cannot see wood for trees. Rules, rules and more rules. Anyone who is in is in and anyone else including the readers just don't count. The site should be shut down.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.214.255 (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Says the person who creates articles which others have to put up for deletion because they're so worthless! Oh dear. Just for the record, and because of your comments above I'm formally linking your account (User:TheCorageone1) with (User:86.154.214.255), both of which have now received highest level warnings for your behaviour. You're lucky - others would not take your attitude so lightly. ANY further infringement of Wiki rules will see both accounts put forward for indefinite blocking, with new account creation barred.  Nick Moyes (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)  

Well said!

Sometimes, a response at the Help Desk or elsewhere on Wikipedia really adds value to my knowledge, as did this edit of yours. The analogy you draw is very nice – I'll use it somewhere in the future. Thanks, Lourdes 05:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)