Jump to content

User talk:Broccoli and Coffee/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

H&P clarification

My request for clarification (which was in itself a bit over vague I guess) was less about the general thrust of your argument, and more that you appear to have forgotten to write a "not" in your original comment. Your additional comment cleared up the issue regardless. signed, Rosguill talk 21:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill - Ha, I didn't even notice the error until just now. Sorry about the confusion. I've edited the comment now. Thanks, – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 04:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Broccoli and Coffee, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 19:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Quentin Tarantino

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Quentin Tarantino 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 Legobot, on behalf of Colin M -- Colin M (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Conversations with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes

Hi Broccoli and Coffee, all the victims and cases that I included on the Wikipedia page was all from the documentary. I also included my summaries for the episodes but some other user deleted them. The media that I included were also used in the documentary. I also included the sources but someone deleted them as well. Shahida916 (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shahida916. As for the episode summaries, it's important that these are not copied and pasted from Netflix, IMDb, or any other online source. You can see more at MOS:TVPLOT and more generally, at WP:COPYVIO. As for your earlier point, previously there was just a list of names. While it's tangentially related to the series, it needs to show why and how. In other words, establish context for why you're including this on the series page. It's also important to include sources to back up all claims made. For this, you can read more at WP:OR. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. Let me know if you have more questions related to this. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 04:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Quentin Tarantino

The article Quentin Tarantino you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Quentin Tarantino for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Colin M -- Colin M (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

James Diener, thanks

Thank you for that revert. I've been going back and forth with the IP editor since May of 2018. He/she just reverted for the ninth time. Ironically, I started the original edit on the article only to correctly format (and add) refs in order to remove the notability template. (Diener clearly met GNG.) I am ready to give up, b/c my head is about to explode. I just left a message on his/her talkpage but I am sure it will do no good. Sigh (and cheers), Julie JSFarman (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Julie, I saw your edit summary about being frustrated (don't blame you), so figured I'd cover for a while. Since the IP has changed over time, I may request page protection, but since it has been going on for so long, we'll see if an admin can agree to indefinite protection. Cheers – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 18:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The IP has changed over time, but he/she has made exactly the same changes using exactly the same words in the edit summary! Sheesh. I'm going to step away for awhile (to avoid previously referenced head-explosion). THANK YOU. JSFarman (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Silicon Valley season pages

Hi, I noticed you recently created season pages for Silicon Valley, however, I'm thinking they really don't meet the threshold for standalone articles per MOS:TVSPLIT. Unless, of course, you plan on expanding those articles much further. Because neither the main article or the list of episodes page are really that long to support a split. The season articles would need to contain new content, specifically production and reception content specific to each season. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: I do think they meet the threshold, the same way several other popular shows with season articles do (Category:2017 American television seasons, Category:2018 American television seasons, etc.). But, I agree they need to be expanded, and I do plan on doing so. Help is welcome, of course. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 17:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I got a bit inspired, so I'm going to try and expand the season articles as much as I can. I'm just getting most of the groundwork and formatting done first. My biggest suggestions are going to be that we're going to need critical reception (that isn't just Metacritic/RT scores, but reviews/quotes from critics) and production info for each individual season. Other stuff that can be done: the cast list can also be expanded to include notable recurring roles as well and a small plot synopsis/overview in the lede. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Drovethrughosts, thank you! This is fantastic. I do most of my (major) wikipedia edits at night, so I'll continue to work on this later after work. The formatting and transclusion work was a big first step, so much appreciated. I agree about the critical reception sections, and in fact that was my next planned focus. I'll return to this tonight, but I appreciate the help in the meantime. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 19:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Angry Birds Dream Blast

Hi Broccoli and Coffee,

Thank you for reviewing my draft Angry Birds Dream Blast! I noticed that you declined the article as "reading too much like an advertisement". Would you be able to explain how you felt the draft read like an advertisement, and how I could fix it? aboideautalk 14:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help on Marilynne Robinson back in January 2019 -- I have a question :)

Hi again Broccoli and Coffee,

You were so kind and helpful helping me with the Marilynne Robinson article. I implemented your advise and have since moved on to other articles.

I had a question and tried asking on Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it was "archived because there was no discussion for a few days." I hope you will point me in the right direction, again! Below is my Teahouse question:

How to upload low resolution Fair Use art with copyright?

RE: Upload art history images under copyright. Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Empire_of_Light . Using: Visual Editor.

There is a Wikipedia article on a series of around a dozen artworks by an artist who died less than seventy years ago. The article already has low resolution images of three paintings in the series (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Empire_of_Light_Guggenheim.jpg ). I have low resolution images for the rest of the paintings to upload. I have tried to “Locally Upload” reduced size, low resolution images. I am using the plain form for local uploads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload . Whatever I do it says its -- open to Speedy Deletion.

Info to include with images: "Fair use image of art: Image unsuitable for commercial purposes. Reduced size image for educational and informational purposes to enable visual identification of the object of the article."

Example of Picasso copyright painting on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Les_Demoiselles_d%27Avignon.jpg (Also, where is the form for “artist” rather than “author” ? ) It would be wonderful if someone would walk me through this step-step!

Thanks, Beth Timken (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Beth. Is it my understanding that you'd like to upload more images to the The Empire of Light article? If so, as you suggest, if they are copyrighted works, they would need to have a non-free use rationale. You can read Wikipedia's page on the subject at WP:FURG. This page should answer several of your questions. You're right to suggest that the images would need to be reduced in size and quality. You can find other examples of how to write a fair use rationale at WP:FURE.
Beyond that, I'm not sure how else to help. I rarely upload images here so I'm not the most qualified person to ask. You can, however, visit the Commons Help Desk, where others may be able to help you. Best of luck! – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 05:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the info! Beth Timken (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Barbalet

I am writing to ask for a review and reversal of the deletion of the wikipedia entry about me and my project, Noble Ape. The entries deleted were created by a series of listeners to my podcasts from 2007 through to about 2013. To be clear, I am only interested in the reversal for Noble Ape and Tom Barbalet on Wikipedia. The other two articles are less important to me.

While I appreciate the articles that were deleted were not ideal, the articles Tom Barbalet and Noble Ape did represent my work in a form which was comparable to others who have contributed a similar extent to the field of artificial life and still actively represented on Wikipedia - OpenWorm, Critterding, Avida, Boids, Polyworld.

They also show through Wikipedia and external academic references (http://www.nobleape.com/sim/#Academic) that my work is not a walled garden. It has contributed to a number of different areas and been used by Apple and Intel for their development.

As the article on Artificial life organizations also shows I have also fostered a community of developers and dialogue in the field of artificial life.

Probably unknown to you through this process is that a number of the external references to Noble Ape are currently being suppressed through payment to Google and other search sources by a comedian who aggressively promoted a comedy tour and album under the same name from 2016 to the present. This has lowered any chance of finding external references to Noble Ape.

I continue to work on Noble Ape to this day totaling more than ten hours per week on average. This is a voluntary effort to further ideas in social evolution, philosophy and open source software. I appreciate that working on Wikipedia is also a voluntary effort. I thank you for your time and considering my request to appeal this deletion.

Barbalet (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Barbalet, I'm neither an administrator, nor am I the one who nominated these pages for deletion. You can read about your options on the page WP:AFTERDELETE. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 03:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Broccoli and Coffee, so only Jo-Jo Eumerus or another admin can undelete the pages? Many thanks. Barbalet (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Up to Snuff

Thank you Broccoli and Coffee for your assistance ensuring that Up to Snuff complies with Wiki standards. As my activity indicates, this is new for me and I appreciate your guidance and suggestions. Am editing the article to present the information in a factual rather than promotional manner. Your continued suggestions are welcomed and appreciated. Thanks, VAJayhawk (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Lauren Slater

According to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Professional Licensure, Psychologists are licensed by the Board of Psychologists.

A complaint has been opened by the Massachusetts Board of Licensure, Office of Investigations, regarding Lauren Slater's misuse of the term "Psychologist" in her online promotions and Twitter Account, on which she has recently changed her title to "practicing psychotherapist". See here: https://twitter.com/LaurenSlaterI

From a letter dated October 15, 2018, from the Office of Investigations, Massachusetts Board of Licensure, is this quote: "Use of that title (Psychologist) is prohibited in Massachusetts unless you hold a current license from our Board of Psychologists. There is no record of Lauren Slater ever holding any license from our Division. I am opening our own complaint against Ms. Slater for using the title "psychologist" in violation of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 112, Section 122."

Lauren Slater has never been a licensed Psychologist, according to the governing body in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but she can be classified as an unlicensed "Psychotherapist". Please make the appropriate corrections to her Wikipedia page.

Contact information for verification:

Alan Van Tassell Supervisor, Office of Investigations Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Professional Licensure 1000 Washington Street Boston, Massachusetts 02118 617-727-7406


PTash (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Request on 08:13:19, 20 May 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Hongbuirydell


Dear reviewer, may i ask your advices on my article of Prof. Christoph Stückelberger?

He is one of the most experienced professors in Ethics subject in Switzerland. We have not found any information about him and his contribution to Ethics. That is why i did research and wrote an article about him. I read our policies and did not give any personal view. The article is purely information with the quotes from reliable websites, not from his blogs, personal website and so on. May I ask your advices on how to improve the article to meet wikipedia's requirements?

Thank you very much for your advice.

With best regards,

Hong


Hongbuirydell (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hongbuirydell, Right now, the draft reads like a resume, rather than an encyclopedic article. It seems to only be a list of his education background and various jobs he's had. I'd recommend reading WP:YFA and WP:PROF. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 16:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Confusing edit

Why did you do this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Trying to clean up WP:POD. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 17:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
This doesn't "clean up" anything--it just inserts needless code. The banners already categorize correctly. What is wrong with Category talk:English-language podcasts as it is now? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing my post in the Quentin Tarantino talk into the right section. Maxvorstadt (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Ha, no problem. I've made the same mistake before, so glad to help. Cheers, and welcome to Wikipedia -- Happy editing! – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 20:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Historical Roasts

Hi Broccoli and Coffee. I was wondering why you added Historical Roasts to {{Netflix specials}} rather than {{Netflix original current series}}. Reading the article, it seems to me that Historical Roasts is a series rather than a special. Or is there something I'm missing? DH85868993 (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@DH85868993: I was (and still am) undecided on how to categorize it. Initially I actually did add it to both Template:Netflix original current series and List of original programs distributed by Netflix. But, after doing so, I saw someone else had already added it to List of original stand-up comedy specials distributed by Netflix#Original stand-up comedy series/collections and so I defaulted to that decision. That said, my preference is still to call it a series rather than a special, like you mention. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 16:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I see. I'm happy to go with whatever you decide. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I just watched another episode and noticed that at the beginning of the opening credits, they call it "A Netflix Original Comedy Series". So, that's good enough for me -- I'll go ahead and make the changes. Thanks for your input. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 04:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Glad to be of service! DH85868993 (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

change with "c/e" as summary?

Hi, I'm the main author of the article about Tegan Marie and just saw your edit. I don't really know what you meant with "c/e" but I figured that the source was used for this sentence didn't mention the year (1972) or anything about Tanya Tucker so I've replaced the source with a better one and added id again. If you didn't mean that, please let me know either here or by writing something into the talk page. Thanks! --Heubergen (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Heubergen. "c/e" or "ce" means "copyedit", usually used as sort of a generic, catch-all edit summary. In this case, I removed the line when Tanya Tucker signed to CBS Records because it's really not relevant to the article -- it's enough to just say she was the youngest since 1972.
On another note, I would encourage you to read through WP:COI and WP:OWN. While I'm sure you don't have any bad intentions with this, you should be aware that editors with a connection to an article subject are discouraged from editing the page directly. Additionally, while you did create the original page, Wikipedia content is not owned by any "main" editor.
In any case, welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 19:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Broccoli and Coffee, I introduced myself as the main author of the article not to claim any ownership, but mainly to give my interest in your edit a context. I understand now that primary contributor might have been a better way to describe my role in this articles creation.
Anyhow; I agree that this piece of information doesn't give the reader any more information about Tegan Marie, but I think it add some helpful information. I can quite imagine that someone, reading this article would wonder; Who's the other artist?. By adding it to the article, I think the reader has a better reading experience. Or do Wikipedia article typically not include such sentences? Honest question as this is my first big contribution as a article author and I'd like to learn more how I can improve this article. --Heubergen (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Heubergen Generally, this type of information isn't included, as it's not directly related to the subject of the article. This is more of a general editing philosophy that many editors (myself included) tend to have, but it's not a hard and fast rule that must be adhered to in all cases. You can read more about it at WP:COAT, which uses the term "coatrack article" to describe this kind of thing. In hindsight, my edit was probably a tad nitpicky; if you'd like to leave it in, I won't remove it. (That said, it's always possible another editor might, for the same reasons I did.) – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 04:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. --Heubergen (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Tesuque, New Mexico

my apologies to the incorrect submission. I would highly recommending requesting someone to create a Wikipedia page for Bnny Rbbt. Thank you. Mysterysandwich899 (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Terminology question

Hi. I visited the Quentin Tarantino article to look over the frequent collaborators table, and found it was 'removed per GA review' by you. What does that mean? I apologize for bothering you with this but i doubt it means Georgia Review, which is all my own search got me. HaxTrax (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi HaxTrax, "GA review" refers to the process of turning the page into a "Good Article". Myself and other editors made several edits to the page to conform to specific article quality and formatting guidelines, with assistance from another editor who had not previously edited the article. You can read more about what it means to be a "good article" here: WP:GA. Cheers – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 23:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

New Article

Hi, Broccoli. I wrote a new article that I THOUGHT I had submitted properly, but haven't had any feedback on it yet, so I'm wondering if I did it correctly. I'm a bit rusty about how to do this stuff, because it's been a while and I'm losing brain cells by the day, evidently. Can you help me out and give me some guidance? Much appreciated. ARD (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi ARynan, is the article you're referring to Draft:Credence (Graphic Novel)? It looks like the draft has not been formally submitted for review, so it won't be reviewed until that's done. I'll go ahead and place a template there now so you can submit it when you're ready. That said, the draft does not appear ready just yet -- it will almost certainly be rejected in its current state. Make sure to read through WP:NPOV to make sure the page conforms to a neutral point of view. Also make sure to use reliable sources, and avoid primary sources when possible. There are a few other formatting changes that are necessary, but I'll go ahead and fix some of those. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 00:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, golly, thank you. It's been awhile since I've done this, so I'm really rusty at all of this. I'll make sure to read the links you provided. ARD (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Found faults with my edits

Let me start by thanking you for being watchful on this well thought of platform.

And now, to the issue at hand: Would you say its spam when facts are being supported by references, sir/Ma? You already stated that links in Wikipedia are no-follow and sometimes could be ignored by search engines, so then, what do I have to benefit by inserting links to buttress certain loosely made statements, other than to help the Wikipedia community? I also source information from here, too. But I would not use any information that is not well supported because it is tantamount to being called gossips/speculation/false information. And I do not believe that is what you are trying to encourage here, Sir/Ma? And so, I would request that you leave the insertions, especially the topic on global warming because I speak as a geologist/authority in the field. The topic of twins was written by a professional in her own rights. So, unless you are trying to tell me that you are versatile in both fields, then I would implore you to leave the insertions as status quo. Thank you very much. Cen79 (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Cen79, you are welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia by using reliable sources. What is not ok is going around to several (unrelated) articles and adding references to the same low-quality unreliable site. That is spamming, and continuing to do so could lead to a block. If you're interested in contributing in more appropriate ways, I'd advise you to start at WP:Introduction and work your way through some of the basics. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 06:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
As I said, I use this platform a lot and could point out a couple of what is called " very low-quality references, from poorly moderated forums, that are still on this platform. All the references that I inserted are related to the topics under which they were inserted, even major platforms have made references to them. I can only conclude, on a second thought except for the Benjamin Button article, that this is a bias against the source of these articles. Have a great day, Sir/Ma.Cen79 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Cen79, low-quality references used on other pages should also be removed. This is not a reason why repeated links to your site should remain. Wikipedia has strict rules on citations using reliable sources. I'd encourage you to read through that page. If you're associated with "efor-real.com", which I believe you are, this not only constitutes link spamming, but means you have a conflict of interest that must be declared. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 18:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Behind the Curve Page

Hello, Behind the Curve was accused of fraud by tfes.org, which is a well known website involving Flat Earth information. Indeed, The Flat Earth Society has its own Wikipedia article and has been a popularly known organization since the 1950's. It has been cited and quoted by many news organizations as representing the Flat Earth movement. Why does this not qualify as a source for Wikipedia?

KnowingTree (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

KnowingTree, I'm not going to debate pseudoscience with you. Instead, you need to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it cannot include information that does not adhere to a neutral point of view. It is also not a collection of links, opinions, or discussions. Any changes you'd like to make to the Behind the Curve page can be made on that article's talk page. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 17:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I took a look at your links and saw:
"Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal"
"Avoid stating opinions as facts." -- Indeed, it was not an opinion stated as a fact, but an assertion made by a well known organization. An organization which most certainly qualifies as notable and well known.
"Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" --All points above have been met.
KnowingTree (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
KnowingTree, a response to the film from its subjects may be acceptable, but it must be presented in the proper way. Please begin a discussion on Talk:Behind the Curve rather than here so other editors may contribute and offer feedback. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 18:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Nick Mason (Internet Personality)

Hi. The above does not appear to be a hoax therefore you might want to remove or alter the warning you left. I've deleted the page under G13 instead. --kingboyk (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Michael Lyons

Hello. I have also been preparing a site for Michael Lyons, but was told by two reviewers to do it through the AfC the wiki review process, add loads more references and add more details. I did that and it took weeks. Now I see you have created a site for Michael. Seems a little unfair that because I followed a review process all my work is now rejected. I assume it’s ok to add to your site. Michael is my father in law so I have a lot of extra information I can add. You can view my efforts at draft:Michael Lyons (sculptor) Drsteveb (talk) 06:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Drsteveb, a few things to note here. First, if Lyons is your father-in-law, you have a strong conflict of interest, and cannot reliably write about the subject in a neutral way. It's also required that Wikipedia users declare their COI on their userpage.
Secondly, I did not create the other Michael Lyons (sculptor) page. But, if a subject is notable, it's always possible that more than one person will want to create the article. It is strongly suggested that new users go through the AFC procedure, while experienced editors have a little more flexibility. This is to help ensure that published articles follow guidelines.
Since you claim to have a lot of extra information on the subject, but since you also have a COI, what I suggest you do is start a post on the talk page where you can suggest specific inclusions you would like to see, with sources that verify what you're suggesting. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 15:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Request on 08:41:21, 29 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Drsteveb


Thanks for the extra info, which is useful.

Drsteveb (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

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

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

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Notability of Joy Gorman Wettels

Hi Broccoli and Coffee. I'm not sure if moving Joy Gorman Wettels to draftspace was necessary. Do you think WP:CREATIVE applies to producers? If so, Wettels seems notable under criterion 3. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lord Bolingbroke, thanks for the concern. I do think Wettels could be notable, which is why I moved the page to draftspace rather than nominating it for deletion. In it's current state, however, there are no strong sources that show the subject's notability. The sources provided either reference something else, or only have a passing mention of Wettels. There is potential there, but it's lacking the substantial referencing necessary for the articlespace (see further up on that page at WP:BASIC or WP:GNG). I moved it to draft to allow for that to happen. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 06:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

In Italy

...and using a bulleted list is an improvement? And what's the problem with "and too many formatting/MOS errors"? Lone Internaut (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lone Internaut, thanks for the message here. I had started to write a message on your talk page to explain but got distracted. Anyway, to answer your questions. I'm not necessarily sold on a bulleted list per se, but I do think it is more aesthetically clear with one. With examples longer than a couple of words, to me this makes sense. As for the "formatting/MOS errors", you can read more at MOS:CQ. Additionally, the phrase claiming scientists would be devious masons (originally claiming scientists are masons) is not really encyclopedic. Same with adding the word "clear" to ...that the United States [has] a plan -- it's not necessary, and perhaps not accurate. Finally, common terms and years, such as 2010s, don't need to be wikilinked; see MOS:OVERLINK for more. Let me know if you have other questions. Thanks. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 20:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry, I am not a native english speaker, so I'm not 100% able to contribute at an encyclopedic level. Thank you for the explanations. Lone Internaut (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Gus Honeybun

Hi, the Dave FitzGerald who worked with Gus Honeybun wasn't this one. He was this one. DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Withnail and I!

Hey just wanted to drop a line and thank you again for cleaning up a bunch of the links on my edits to the Withnail and I page. I'm still getting the hang of some of the formatting for edits, etc. Appreciate you taking the time to clean those up for me. Cheers Hinckleycoldstorage (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hinckleycoldstorage, No problem, glad to help! Generally, the visual editor isn't always friendly with formatting, so I'll frequently go back and forth between that and source mode. Still, content edits are more important than formatting, so thanks for the additions – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 01:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Request on 18:10:36, 7 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Ronnyjowe


Hi Broccoli and Coffee, I'm new to the wiki game. Please you could help me understand how i can use the below links to justify the articles notability? Hopefully the below will suffice.

https://themassifcentral.blog/2014/06/25/portrait-of-the-cycling-podcast/ https://www.rapha.cc/gb/en/stories/the-cycling-podcast-rapha https://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph-cycling-podcast/ https://www.pezcyclingnews.com/latestnews/pez-chat-richard-moore/ https://road.cc/content/review/239095-cycling-podcast-journey-through-cycling-year https://inrng.com/2018/07/tour-podcast-reviews/

In particular, this DCMS select committee report https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/366/36606.htm

Ronnyjowe (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ronnyjowe, generally any claims made in an article should be backed up with a reliable source. Wikipedia does not support original research and instead prefers content that is cited and verifiable.
To more directly answer your question, I'd recommend reading these pages to give you a better sense of the situation: WP:N, WP:NWEB, WP:RS, and WP:YFA.
The sources you provided can be added to the article using <ref>...</ref> tags and placed after each claim made in. Let me know if you have further questions. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 01:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Dwight Schrute; Thanks for Noticing Error

Thanks for correcting my error on this page. I clicked to revert the bad edit; then for some reason I clicked again and reverted my own edit! A slip of the finger, I guess, or perhaps I thought the first click didn't take for some reason. Whatever, thanks again. Donner60 (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Donner60, No problem! I did the same thing the other day on a different page and couldn't figure out how or why it happened. Cheers – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 22:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Can't find your previous message

Hey, Broccoli! I just got back from out of town on a job, and was sitting down to re-read your notes, edits and suggestions for the Credence article I've been working on -- but now I can't find your message. I'm a little rusty with the Wiki, so...er..help! :P Hope you're well. ARD (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


Update: Um, I think I found them... (sheepish grin) ARD (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi ARynan, it looks like your previous message was archived (a bot does this automatically for me), and can now be found here. Hope that's what you were looking for. Any other questions, feel free to respond here. Cheers – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 00:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You're a doll. Thank you. I may be back, as my facility with Wiki has evidently eroded to the Jurassic. ARD (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

ITTF Africa Cup deletion

Hello there I am the creator of the page and I just want to say I personally don't care if the page is deleted or not. I think you would be wrong for deleting the page because the page was created to represent an actual African table tennis tournament that started in 2016 and is held annually. Since you are self claimed Wikipedia editor I think what you should do is help improve the page but then I realized its an African content only Africans care about Africans so am not surprised. The competition is fairly new so there is not a lot of sources that can be cited and I cited the official page from the ITTF website. Since Wikipedia doesn't feed me and I actually have better things to do than to feed my ego of being a Wikipedia editor I won't be wasting any of precious time in discussion something that won't in any way bring any positive growth to me. What am trying to say is that you should help improve the page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OmoYoruba45 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion for Bands & Musicians who have played at the Lemp Neighborhood Arts Center

Hi Broccoli and Coffee, thank you for your review of my new article. I have seen that you proposed that my list should be subject to deletion. I understand that the article is unsourced, which I am working on right now for all of the artists listed. However, I want to add this reference since it is by far the most concrete: https://web.archive.org/web/20151029233354/http://www.lemp-arts.org/fall08_events.php?content=pEvents

In other words, that is the archived list of all past events at the Lemp Neighborhood Arts Center. This venue is in the lore of DIY venues throughout the United States, and especially in Saint Louis. The venue provided a home for Saint Louis' hardcore, indie rock, math rock, and punk scene throughout the 00's. Most importantly, it catalyzed the rise of our city's experimental and noise music scene. Most of the bands and musicians in our city's music scene began at the Lemp.

The reason why I believe the list is important is because it shows all of the variety of touring artists who once operated underground and who had continuously returned back to the venue to perform. Many people that I talk to who used to frequent at the Lemp talk about going to the shows that these bands/musicians had played and seeing them in such an intimate setting. I want the young kids in the city who are just starting to play out to recognize the rich history of our city's underground music scene, and that DIY venues such Radio Cherokee, Spooky Action Palace, Apop Records, Open Lot, and especially the Lemp (which is older than the rest combined), should not be forgotten. -- DrunkenDinosaur (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi DrunkenDinosaur. While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the venue and its local importance, those qualities don't necessarily lead to the criteria for an encyclopedia article. For starters, you're welcome to read WP:GNG, which describes general notability guidelines for Wikipedia articles. WP:LISTN also has information on these types of lists specifically. Instead of a separate page that lists artists who have performed at this venue, I would recommend helping build the page for the venue itself. There, you may even be able to list some of the acts listed here -- though, if you don't have a context for its importance, it may be deleted by another editor. I hope this helps clarify some of this, but please let me know if you have more questions. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 00:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Big Mouth Edit on August 17, 2019

Can you please explain your rationale for removing my edit on Big Mouth? There is no explanation given, and it seemed like a pretty innocuous (as well as correct) edit that I made. Asc85 (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Asc85: Initially it caught my eye as vandalism---I'm sure you're aware of vandals, on this page and plenty others, adding in details about themselves to articles. I know your edit was not vandalism, however it still contains zero context. Perhaps that idea could be added to the episode description, but prior to it, there's no mention of Connie or any issue between them to make up. Just adding Nick makes up with Connie to the end of the summary without any context is out of place. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 16:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The first sentence in this episode description seemed to give some context, but whatever. Asc85 (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Common Courage Press

Thanks a lot for your help on the Common Courage Press article I created this morning! I appreciate you cleaning up after me. I spend most of my time doing bibliography and I’m still learning how best to write for Wikipedia. I’m paying attention to your critiques and I will learn from them! Just curious, do you have a personal interest in the publisher, or are you just lending a hand? Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Would you perhaps recommend the best way I can go about demonstrating the notability of the publisher? Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Neighborhood Nationalist, no problem. I frequently monitor newly created pages. Many of them, as you might imagine, are spam and need to be deleted, but I prefer cleaning up and helping on the ones I do think have potential to remain---including Common Courage Press. So, no, I wasn't previously familiar with the company, but I'm happy to help out.
Per WP:RS and WP:NCORP, it is best to find reliable sources that have covered the company in depth. This means unreliable sources or articles that only mention the company in passing won't help establish notability. Do you know of any significant coverage the company has received? – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 14:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Broccoli and Coffee,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Broccoli and Coffee,

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

Getting the queue to 0

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

Coordinator

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

This month's refresher course

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

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

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

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

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

Community Wish list

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I've been meaning to tell you for a while how much I appreciate you splitting the HDTGM episodes into a separate page. The main page was getting so unwieldy. Hotironskillet (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Hotironskillet! Let me know if I can help further. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 17:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

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

Reviewer of the Year

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect autopatrol

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

Source Guide Discussion

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

This month's refresher course

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

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

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Broccoli and Coffee,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Broccoli and Coffee, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Broccoli_and_Coffee/Archive_2&oldid=1079153409"