User talk:Willbb234

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Willbb234,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello Willbb234,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Indentation in talk page discussions

Hi Will. I'd like to suggest that you take a look or refresher at WP:THREAD. There's a couple of edits now ([1], [2]) where I've had to repair the indentation level and placement of your replies. If you find this difficult, you may wish to use the new reply tool, which will automatically indent your replies based on the specific message you're replying to. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Okay, thank you. Willbb234 20:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Malicious

You are, of course, free to have the content you want at your own talkpage. I don't hide that I left angry messages; there were no insults or attacks, just an angry demand for answers to incredibly poor or malicious edits you made. As I said, I changed the message because I hoped being clearer would make you realise you were wrong and stop you from digging yourself deeper by continuing to revert. I request that you do not refactor my comments (this is unacceptable, even on your own talkpage), but if you want to remove them, at least leave alone the message I left for the admin (re-added below). Kingsif (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC) And yes, for someone talking about "true colours" it's very clear that you are maliciously changing my messages so that you can avoid accountability. At least answer, then, what the fuck did you think you were doing? Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Also pinging @Ritchie333: since you just unblocked this guy and the behaviour is either malicious (my initial assumption, unfortunately, based on his experience) or dangerously incompetent. Specifically, he broke WP:1RR at two locations. Kingsif (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Are we reading the same comments? Willbb234 22:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a good reason for poorly attempting to remove GA status without reason and break your 1RR ban? Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't break my 1RR ban. Secondly, I was the reviewer for the article. Willbb234 22:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you did. You made more than one direct revert, and in two locations. Unless I'm mistaken, you have to at least show willing to discuss before making another revert even over 24 hours later. No, you weren't; maybe you were the first time, but you weren't the second. And as I explained, when I realised you may simply be ignorant to the GAN process rather than being an egotist or malicious, the most recent review is the only one needed. As I also said, you'd be wise to simply plead your ignorance even though this seems obvious (I've had a lot of birthdays, but I take my age from the most recent) and avoid GAN.

And yes (since you've answered, I will), we're reading the same comments. Maybe you find demanding accountability, or questioning your motives to be attacks. I don't, because, simply, the main defining point in whether something is an attack is the motive - is someone trying to hurt you more than anything else - which is often clear, and I clearly wasn't. Impolite, but not uncivil; as I said, since you've been at GA for years I wondered how the basic principles could elude you and assumed bad faith. Kingsif (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

What on earth are you going on about? You basically have found a really long way of saying nothing at all. Go and read the unblock proposal and stop making up the rules yourself. Willbb234 23:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Just when I thought we were communicating, the attempted misdirection makes a return. You have basically found a really quick - but unfortunately more obvious - way of trying to shirk responsibility.

If anyone needs to stop making up rules, it's the guy who thinks he gets to decide he doesn't like other people passing GANs. I'll assume that's got through by now, hopefully, so I think we're done here. Kingsif (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on alleged Australian war crimes and Hawkeye7 on the 1944–45 Philippines campaign and the Australian Signals Directorate

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Criticism

Will, I know it's difficult to take on criticism. I've had a hard time, at times, doing the same. You felt disrespected when you found this article was reviewed and made a GA despite your assessment at the time you reviewed it. Add to it the uncivil remarks made towards you here and I can understand and sympathize with your filing the case. I do believe that they should receive a stern warning from an admin for their comments. However, in regards to the issue that brought all of this about, multiple editors did not simply disagree with you, the consensus was against you and if I've learned anything from editing over the past few years it's that consensus is the law here. We don't have to agree with the outcome, and there are review processes even for that, but we have to respect the rule of the community and any attempt to circumvent that, whether by way of a good faith misunderstanding or blatant bad faith, is disruptive and even good faith editors can be sanctioned for disruptive editing. Its never a good idea to edit war even if you feel you were justified to make the intitial revert. The edit warring, which I will admit was not a direct violation of your 1RR restriction as erroneously thought, is just giving admin's a reason to pass along serious sanctions. If you are a good faith editor and I have to believe you are due to my own principles beyond that required by policy, then I implore you to please respond to Tamzin's comment that you understand the issues and where you erred personally in this situation. --ARoseWolf 18:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and sympathisation. My behaviour was poor and I would have rather let everyone forget the ordeal, but I don't like the idea of someone getting away so easily with personal attacks. It just doesn't sit right. Willbb234 19:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I would like to point to my last comment before the close which I intended to amend (sometimes I get twisted in my words because English is not my first language). The process is consensus. The subsequent talk page discussion you linked to was further consensus and the discussion at AN/I verified that community consensus in this case. I do not like seeing good faith editors get sanctioned, even though I understand why it must be, so I'm glad the result was something different which is my only goal through these discussions. I had hoped you would respond the way you did as I hope Kingsif takes on the criticism of their initial comments directed at you as pointed out by @Snowrise and in the close by @Tamzin. I also hope they respond in kind and express their agreeance that their actions were incorrect and further such activity will not be tolerated by the community. I am not an admin and never do I want to be one. It's a difficult position to have and I respect those who attain it. I am, however, a firm believer in this community and this collaborative project and though even my intentions can be misplaced at times my hope is that I receive the same consideration that you have in this case and someone takes the time to point this out to me as I have with you. Fortunately that has been the case so far and I have grown from it. --ARoseWolf 19:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2018 Chicago Marathon

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2018 Chicago Marathon, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Christianization

Hello! If you want to be done with me and this article, please do say so and I will go away and try to work through this without you.

I rewrote the lead, and I am not feeling confident that it's an improvement. Religion Wiki has an article titled Christianization, and this is its lead paragraph: The historical phenomenon of Christianization, (or Christianisation — see spelling differences) the conversion of individuals to Christianity or the conversion of entire peoples at once, also includes the practice of converting native pagan practices and culture, pagan religious imagery, pagan sites and the pagan calendar to Christian uses, due to the Christian efforts at proselytism (evangelism) based on the tradition of the "Great Commission". The process of Christianization has at times been relatively peaceful and at times has been a very violent process, ranging from political conversions to adopt Christianity to military campaigns to force conversion onto native populaces.

Is that better? It seems very similar, however, while rewriting the lead, (before I read Religion Wiki's intro.) it occurred to me that part of the problem with this article is that it lacks focus. It's too broad. If it's a parent article, then I am thinking it should have three short sections covering each of the three types of Christianization with links to other more specific articles such as Christianization of the Roman Empire (and other countries), and Conversion to Christianity. I don't think there is an article that is specifically about the Christianization of places and practices and so on, so one alternative to making this a parent article is to make it specifically about that one aspect of Christianization. Or perhaps a parent article and a sub-article are both needed. I am unsure which direction to take, so I am hoping you will have some insight. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Hi, and thanks for your message. Would you be able to bear with me for a few days? I have something important next Tuesday and I need to prepare for this, so I won't be editing for a few days. I'll take a look afterwards, if that's alright? Willbb234 12:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand perfectly, RL sometimes interferes with our online life, doesn't it? I am happy to wait, but the truth is, I have already begun a rewrite in my sandbox. I am treating it as a parent article, dividing it into three main sections on Christianization of individuals, sites and nations. I have completely deleted the entire content on 'stages' so there can be no disagreement or problem over any of it. I have removed acculteration as well since you said it was confusing. I am gathering new sources for the new material I am adding, being very extremely careful with those, rearranging most of it, and hopefully better focusing the entire article. It won't be ready for a little while yet, so there is no hurry and nothing for you to worry about for even a second. Take all the time you need. I will be grateful when you are able to take another look at what hopefully will be a whole new article - a better one. Thank you for taking the time to answer even though you are busy! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The article has now been redone. I hope it measures up now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: okay, thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look soon and leave some comments. Willbb234 16:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on finding and using images

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Armenian genocide recognition

You keep removing sourced content, rather than trying to find reasonable alternatives. You started a discussion on my talk page, and have neglected to respond to alternative suggestions. Blanket deletion of topic specific material backed by WP:RS is not helpful. As for the talk page discussion on Armenian genocide recognition, no final consensus was ever reached and the conversation is on-going. Archives908 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Archives908: WP:ONUS is clear that it's on you to find consensus to include such material. While conversations are going on, as you claim they supposedly still are, then the disputed content should be left out of the article until consensus is found to place it back in. Stop trying to shift this responsibility on to me. BRD is neither policy nor a legitimate rationale for reverting my edits. Willbb234 13:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm waiting for others to reply. Do you even know what's going on? For the record, none of the sourced content is disputed. What the conversation centers around is formatting and duplication, something I have been trying to improve on that article for years. Archives908 (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2018 Chicago Marathon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2018 Chicago Marathon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2018 Chicago Marathon

The article 2018 Chicago Marathon you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2018 Chicago Marathon and Talk:2018 Chicago Marathon/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2018 Chicago Marathon

The article 2018 Chicago Marathon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2018 Chicago Marathon for comments about the article, and Talk:2018 Chicago Marathon/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 209, September 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Oppenheimer biopic

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Feeling POINTY?

Do you really think this is a good decision given the recent ANI thread that you participated in? Surely you saw the numerous editors who expressed that that userbox is WP:POLEMIC. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with how others users approach this issue. I'm also not disrupting the encyclopedia so I don't see the problem. Willbb234 19:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

You don't see a problem with being intentionally offensive just to prove a point? ––FormalDude (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not offensive. Willbb234 09:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Not to you, but you know it is contentious and you know other editors find it offensive, yet you chose to display it anyway. It looks like you're trying to antagonize. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September 2023 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the September 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. David Thomsen: Prolific Wikipedian and Guild member David Thomsen (Dthomsen8) died in November 2022. He was a regular copy editor who took part in many of our Drives and Blitzes. An obituary was published in the mid-July issue of The Signpost. Tributes can be left on David's talk page. Election news: In our mid-year Election of Coordinators, Dhtwiki was chosen as lead coordinator, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo continue as assistant coordinators, and Baffle gab1978 stepped down from the role. If you're interested in helping out at the GOCE, please consider nominating yourself for our next election in December; it's your WikiProject and it doesn't organize itself! June Blitz: Of the 17 editors who signed up for our June Copy Editing Blitz, 12 copy-edited at least one article. 70,035 words comprising 26 articles were copy-edited. Barnstars awarded are here. July Drive: 34 of the 51 editors who took part in our July Backlog Elimination Drive copy-edited at least one article. They edited 276 articles and 683,633 words between them. Barnstars awarded are here. August Blitz: In our August Copy Editing Blitz, 13 of the 16 editors who signed up worked on at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 79,608 words comprising 57 articles. Barnstars awarded are available here. September Drive: Sign up here for our month-long September Backlog Elimination Drive, which is now underway. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 14:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have processed 245 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,066. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Native Americans in the United States. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

You replied on my talk page:

Edit war? Look on the talk page. Willbb234 19:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I did. And others have warned you about edit-warring and WP:INCIVILITY. I am starting a log here for the record. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussions on the talk page don't constitute an edit war. Willbb234 20:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

No one said they did. Read the warning again. It's not the number of reverts you've done, it's that you're displaying incivility, a battleground attitude, and you seem to be trying to wear people down on the talk page, cursing at them and either not understanding or misrepresenting what constitutes consensus. You've had a handful of people bring it up to you now. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Infobox stats

Please note that we only include domestic league games in the infobox - so no Cup or Continental matches etc. Please also ensure that when you update the stats you also update the date, using ~~~~~. If you have any questions please ask. GiantSnowman 10:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: thanks for the reminder. I was going off the statistics at the Stenhousemuir FC website which I assumed was just for league games. I'll take more care in the future. Willbb234 21:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I tend to use Soccerbase/Soccerway for stats. GiantSnowman 19:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Willbb234,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

August GA

Hello. I will look at them this week. Eurohunter (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It's delayed. I had no time to check it. Eurohunter (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Transgender, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Transgender has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: why do you keep re-adding the unsourced content? Provide a reasonable explanation, preferably without using all caps. Willbb234 18:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

You have twice referred to sourced content as "unsourced". You have twice referred to my reverting your content removal as "adding content" when I am adding nothing and merely restoring the status quo. I am not sure why you are doing this, and I am not sure what I can say to help you understand what these terms actually mean. Rather than get into an edit war, why don't you make a proposal to remove the content on the Talk page and see if anybody else agrees with you? DanielRigal (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: na, WP:ONUS. Willbb234 18:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

You were removing content. The onus is on you to justify the change you are making. Removing sourced content and calling it "unsourced" is either a bizarre misunderstanding or something worse. Please either drop it or take it to the Talk page if you believe that you have a genuine reason to remove the content. If you are right, and it is just me being wrong, then you will find that other people will agree with you and I will accept that consensus. DanielRigal (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: the only bizarre misunderstanding here is how you've read WP:ONUS. Willbb234 18:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@DanielRigal, FWIW, the onus is on the person who wants to include the information, even if it's currently included, and the fact that info is sourced at a linked article isn't enough. If someone objects to unsourced content, go bring in the source. Valereee (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Transgender. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Deletion from My Lai article.

I undid your deletion. The soldiers actually committed a sexual assault, not even attempted, by trying to rip her blouse off.JohnKent (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@JohnKent: I read the source in the caption and couldn't see any mention of this sexual assault. Please provide a reference for this. Willbb234 10:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's the quote from the cited reference. "In one incident, a group of 7-12 women and children were herded together, and members of the 3d Platoon attempted to rip the blouse off a Vietnamese girl. They halted their attempts after observing that the PI0 photographer was near their location and had taken a picture of the scene (see exhibit P-40). The women and children were then killed." I will improved the citation so it points to the exact page.JohnKent (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to improve the article.JohnKent (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@JohnKent: my exact point - the source doesn't actually say a sexual assault occurred. Unless you're trying to infer that the action of ripping her blouse of was a sexual assault, but that's not how Wikipedia works. We also don't know a motive - perhaps they were searching for weapons. This isn't for us to decide. Willbb234 16:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault "Sexual assault takes many forms including attacks such as rape or attempted rape, as well as any unwanted sexual contact or threats. Usually a sexual assault occurs when someone touches any part of another person's body in a sexual way, even through clothes, without that person's consent."JohnKent (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@JohnKent: "unwanted sexual contact or threats" "touches any part of another person's body in a sexual way". This is not indicated in the source, so we cannot say that it is sexual assault. Willbb234 17:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

"members of the 3d Platoon attempted to rip the blouse off a Vietnamese girl" - This is absolutely "unwanted sexual contact".JohnKent (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@JohnKent: okay, seeing as this isn't getting anywhere, you will need to find consensus to include this. Per WP:ONUS, it is on you to find this consensus. Thanks, Willbb234 18:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on an American general and the first female astronauts, Nick-D on Roman fortifications

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Willbb234 reported by User:Raladic (Result: ). Thank you. Raladic (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Transgender. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: you're not going to give me a chance to defend myself? Willbb234 13:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm honestly astounded at this block. Please review the edits. You spent all of four minutes looking at the case and came to a conclusion. I really can't believe that this is a valid block. Willbb234 13:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Willbb234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello. I believe a mistake was made when I was blocked for edit warring at Transgender. Please let me explain. I initally made some edits which removed unsourced content, content that was being discussed at another page and changed some wording to more accurately reflect a source. This was reverted because apparently it was referenced "in the linked articles" which of course is not allowed on Wikipedia so I reverted the edit. Sources are needed on this article to verify the claim. I was told that "The onus is on you to justify the change you are making." In other words, that I have to find consensus to removed unsourced content from an article, which is the opposite of what is said at WP:ONUS. I decided that it wasn't worth my time to continue arguing against this. Anyway, I then replaced the wording which I believe was mistakenly caught up in the other reverts made to my edits, which is an entirely valid edit to make. This was then reverted because it apparently "does not reflect the cited RS" and "minimises the actuality of discrimination". I then reverted this as I was frankly baffled at the reasoning in the edit summary. In hindsight, I should have brought this to the talk page, but I still don't believe that this was a particularly disruptive edit. I was then reverted again because apparently "reported can express some degree of scepticism over what is being said". Again, I decided this wasn't worth arguing over. I then made a entirely reasonable edit based on an RS. As nobody was ever arrested in connection with the murder, we can't determine whether this was "an anti-transgender hate crime". I was then reverted because apparently my edit was "non-constructive" and taken to the edit warring noticeboard and the evidence provided there didn't even show a pattern of edit warring on the page and yet I was promptly blocked with no answer as to why this was. In summary, I made attempts to discuss edits on my talk page, didn't revert when I realised that it would be disruptive, and made reasonable edits backed by reliable sources and yet I was blocked for edit warring. Willbb234 15:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Thinking that your edits are correct is not a defense to edit warring, as everyone in an edit war thinks that they are correct. I am not convinced that you understand what was wrong with this situation, so I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Willbb, FWIW, it doesn't actually matter whether the edits were reasonable, valid, or correct or even whether the onus is on the other person. When other editors -- especially multiple other editors -- are objecting to edits you keep trying to make, yes, you should go to the talk page. I'd really recommend it on the first revert when it's a contentious topic. Valereee (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: well I think it's still relevant as to whether the objections are reasonable or not. Willbb234

It's relevant to a discussion of content at the talk page. It's not relevant to the question of edit-warring. You were blocked for edit-warring, not for making edits you thought were reasonable. An unblock request needs to address the reason for the block. Valereee (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: No, removing unsourced content multiple times is not edit warring as the reason for adding the material back in clearly goes against one of our principles. There's a difference between edit warring over a poor objection and edit warring over an objection which is clearly against Wikipedia rules. And also an unblock request can be made if one believes a mistake was made in the inital block, which in this case there was. Willbb234 17:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You do not understand policy. That was clear immediately after the report at WP:AN3 was filed and you posted a nonsensical comment about edit-warring. Reverts are reverts and are only exempt from counting towards edit-warring if they fall within the exceptions noted at WP:3RRNO, which yours do not. Worse, they were borderline transphobic. I was tempted to block you for longer than one week because of that.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Transphobic? What the fuck are you on about? You also only spent four minutes before deciding to block me so you clearly didn't adequately assess the situation. Again, this was a clear mistake and I think you need to reconsider how you approach editing here. Willbb234 17:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You've now made this silly claim twice on this page. I blocked you 7 hours after the report at AN3 was filed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You blocked me four minutes after your previous edit. If you had spent any more time, you wouldn't have made such a mistake. It's not a silly claim. Willbb234 17:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You are not doing yourself any favors by your comments here. I suggest you wait for an administrator to review your unblock request. Any more disruptive comments will probably result in revocation of your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Willbb, I agree with Bbb that you are misinterpreting policy. And just because they made an edit four minutes before blocking doesn't mean they hadn't been investigating only in that four minutes. People multitask. I'm going to ask you to assume two things:

1. the timing of the block isn't reason to assume bad faith
2. the content dispute is irrelevant except in very limited situations, which this is not

Bbb is also correct that you could end up without talk page access if you keep arguing these two things. The point of unblock requests is to show that you understand the reason for the block and agree to comply. Just leave everything else out of it, it's not helping you. Valereee (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: Okay, but what is the correct course of action when someone is for example continually adding unsourced content to an article and I'm not allowed to remove it as it would constitute an edit war? Going to the talk page to gain consensus would take too long and it's clearly something than can't stay on the article for any length of time. Willbb234 18:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

So, Willbb, there is no such thing as take too long except in very limited situations. Incorrect content is not an emergency unless it, for instance, libels or violates the right to privacy of a living person or is otherwise grossly offensive, a few other things. One of the things you can suggest at a talk section is, "I'd like to remove this until someone comes in with a source that supports it", and if no one objects, remove the content. If someone does object, have a conversation. As you say, the onus is on them to bring in the sources, and yeah, sources in linked articles isn't enough, those sources needs to be added to this article. But still not an emergency, and still should be at minimum brought to talk to explain why you're removing content against apparent consensus. Valereee (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, and because I'm lazy, what exactly is the content you felt was clearly something than can't stay on the article for any length of time? Valereee (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay thank you. Willbb234 19:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Valereee can I have access to my sandboxes? Willbb234 14:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not an answer to Valereee's question. As for your request, you have "access" to your sandboxes.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Bbb23 can I edit my sandboxes? Willbb234 14:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course not. You can't edit anything while you're blocked, and you know that, so why do you bother us with ridiculous questions?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Because I would like to edit my sandbox and I can't imagine someone would revert edits I make to my own sandbox. Sorry that I am 'bothering' you. Willbb234 14:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Bbb23 I take that as a no then? Willbb234 17:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Willbb, access while fully blocked is limited to your talk page, and is only to be used even here for discussing your unblock. You shouldn't be editing anywhere else or about anything else. I'm not actually even sure it's possible to change a block to allow editing of your user pages, but even if it were, that's not what you should be focussing on. Valereee (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.DanielRigal (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Forum, Norwich

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Forum, Norwich you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Willbb234:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 2500 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at English Civil War logistics and Peacemaker67 at Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on how WP:SIZE matters

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Forum, Norwich

The article The Forum, Norwich you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Forum, Norwich for comments about the article, and Talk:The Forum, Norwich/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 212, December 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Russian invasion of Ukraine Op-ed: Nick-D on writing Rhodesian military articles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter Hello, and welcome to the December 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. Don't forget that you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Election news: The Guild needs coordinators! If you'd like to help out, you may nominate yourself or any suitable editor—with their permission—for the Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2024. Nominations will close at 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). Voting begins immediately after the close of nominations and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under current sanctions) are eligible, and self-nominations are welcome. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on 30 June. Drive: Of the 69 editors who signed up for the September Backlog Elimination Drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 661,214 words in 290 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here. Blitz: Of the 22 editors who signed up for the October Copy Editing Blitz, 13 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 109,327 words in 52 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here. Drive: During the November Backlog Elimination Drive, 38 of the 58 editors who signed up copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 458,620 words in 234 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here. Blitz: Our December Copy Editing Blitz will run from 10 to 16 December. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 20:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 344 requests since 1 January, and the backlog stands at 2,191 articles. Other news: Our Annual Report for 2023 is planned for release in the new year. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Joseph James DeAngelo. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. do not remove edits by veteran users Fruitloop11 (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Joseph James DeAngelo shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruitloop11 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: re-read WP:NPA. It was a joke. It was not a personal attack. Willbb234 03:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)