User talk:Lklundin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


April 2015[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm DrFleischman. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to User talk:Cminard. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: While I appreciate your concern for Wikiquette, I suspect that you did not check the user's editing history (see Cminard (talk · contribs · count)). We are, all three of us on this talk page, experienced enough to know that:
A) We're all fallible and, as such, an inapplicable template warning can end up being used as a matter of bad judgement rather than malice (as you've acknowledged yourself);
B) Interactions between users should be judged in context.
The user you are defending may be inexperienced, but their track record suggests that there is a fundamental problem with their lack of interaction with other editors (i.e., failure to discuss content in any shape or form on article talk pages per WP:BRD), along with the use of misleading edit summaries, the removal of sourced content, and the introduction of unsourced content. These elements, in tandem with the fact that the user has now ventured into Eastern European ARB sanctioned articles and has begun to edit war content, should suggest that your reprimands of other editors are disproportionate in light of Cminard's editing practices. My suggestion would be that, if you feel compelled to intervene and reprimand, you should make certain that such reprimands are not one sided. Kind regards. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy, I do not care about Cminard's editing behavior or history. What I was concerned with was the fact that Lklundin accused Cminard of vandalism when in fact it was quite clear she did not engage in vandalism. When I pointed this out, Lklundin did not acknowledge his or her error but instead doubled down with an unduly aggressive admonishment of Cminard. Now Cminard may be a very weak editor, perhaps incompetent for all I know, but I still feel Lklundin's follow-up response was completely disproportionate. I don't think it was malicious but it was certainly unproductive and set a very poor example for others who combat vandalism. I guess what I'm trying to say is that two wrongs don't make a right. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@DrFleischman: Let me offer you my perspective:
1) Vandalism can come in the form of changing a single character, per Wikipedia:Vandalism, such as the change that caused me to place the warning.
2) The warning I placed was a caution (level 2), because a few days before a previous warning had been made, with no acknowledgement from the editor.
3) The warning I placed not only refers to the specific, reverted edit, but uses plural to refer to "unconstructive edits" and "your edits", which together with the first warning cautions that there is a general problem with the editors's contributions.
4) Since you question my assessment that the reverted edit was vandalism, I would like to quote Wikipedia:Vandalism: "Not all that appears to be vandalism is in bad faith, and a warning can politely advise and correct users unaware of the nature of their actions". So per this statement, apparent vandalism is sufficient cause for a warning.
5) Further, per Wikipedia:Vandalism the purpose of the warning is among others to "seek the user's compliance". By expressing indifference (in capitals no less), the user clearly demonstrates that the warning had no effect.
6) As such I explained why the warning was placed and using the phrase "I hope you will take a moment to think about this", I see no aggressive language, at least from my side.
7) You are right that certain unconstructive editing is borderline with respect to being vandalism. In this case the continued contributions from the editor gives me no reason to reconsider my assessment.
Your interest in this discussion tells me that you are or should be aware of the user's pattern of unconstructive editing. So I would be pleased to read your recommendations of what actions should be taken to avoid further unconstructive editing from this user and maybe even turn the user into a productive one.
Since you may not agree with me, I will add that we cannot discuss this forever (especially since I have nothing to add), so you are welcome to have the last word. All the best. Lklundin (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please take this with a grain of salt. If I had encountered Cmindard's edit myself, I would have simply reverted it without a user warning. If I was inclined to put something on her user talk, my aim would have been to educate rather than to punish. I wouldn't have used a vandalism warning, which was unlikely to yield a productive response in this particular situation. (Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but I could have predicted a negative response.) Instead, I would have posted something friendly explaining why I reverted, e.g. that the word "government" shouldn't be capitalized because it's not a proper noun, and please review your edits before committing them careful to avoid typos like "Fovernment." Since you wrote you were more concerned about "Fovernment" than about the capitalization, {{uw-preview}} might have been a decent choice of template. Now, if your concern wasn't so much about that particular edit but instead about a pattern of editing, as Iryna expressed, then you really ought to have explained that. As long as we're all here to build an encyclopedia, the primary goal of user talk is to make us into stronger editors, not to kick out the weaker ones. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

John Mark Dougan[edit]

There is really no need for this sort of snark. I look forward to working productively with you in the future. I mean that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: You seem to think that I was being sarcastic. But I just saw you were improving on a new and very questionable article, that could just as well have been proposed for deletion, so I thought I would help without getting directly mixed up in your work, by pointing to some background information. FYI, I did a bit of work on the photo used the article, on Commons where you do not seem active. All the best, Lklundin (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Ooooops, I had indeed misunderstood, sorry. Ah the joys of text communication. And thanks for your help. Do you think the article should be deleted, and if so, based on notability, neutrality/WP:TNT, or what? I'm not 100% certain the article is salvageable myself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your message and don't worry. I am not a native English speaker so maybe my choice of words is sometimes a bit unusual. Good question regarding this article, which did not start out very well. I think your assessment based on the media's reporting is OK, or certainly not for me to question. I fully support your decision to remove the mention of this new article from the Edward Snowden article. So let's just see how it all evolves. Maybe someone else will have something to say. I think I will keep an eye on the article, an article about a US citizen apparently in Russia due to US persecution has the potential to become contentious. Lklundin (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. The reporting in both the U.S. and in Russia seems sloppy and biased which makes putting a decent article together particularly challenging. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Good point. Although I am unaware of a policy that covers a case of seemingly sloppy and biased reporting, I think it can be used to form an argument in favour of notability. The rationale would be that if something is being reported, but with conflicting and biased views, then that it in itself adds some notability to the topic, since it is an indication that there is something more to the topic. I guess. Lklundin (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

User creation date[edit]

Hi Lklundin, thank you for your welcome message. I am curious of the year count of your Wikipedian history on your page. How do you find out the account creation time for a user account please? —冷雾 (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You can login to your account, then click on 'Preferences' on the top of the page. From there you can click 'View global account info', that will show you a summary of your contributions to different languages, along with the account creation time. I hope that helps. Lklundin (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited EPR (nuclear reactor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MW. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding content deletion on the page Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station. 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, see here. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Lancastle (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fosen Vind, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sami. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Lklundin. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Notification[edit]

Hi, Lklundin. I asked comments concerning usage of {{convert}} and {{cvt}}. As this request was triggered by your edit and particularly by your edit summary, you are welcome to comment it. Beagel (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I just got told off for making some bad edits, but I don't know what you're talking about. I contribute occasionally to Wikipedia, but that is the extent of my participation. I have never edited anything, nor has anybody in this household. sigh 184.151.61.2 (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the IP-address you are currently using was last used for making a sequence of non-constructive changes, that were undone by another contributor. That has nothing to do with me. For your occasional contributions to Wikipedia, I recommend creating an account. Happy editing. Lklundin (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thermal power/capacity/efficiency[edit]

I would suggest to read WP:NPA. I am referring to your words: "In fact, I find your above English rather broken, so instead of rushing to provide your opinion you could take an extra moment to phrase your response ...". It may be true that my English is broken, but please, also if I understand that you don't like my points, getting personal is not useful. --Robertiki (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is one of the world's most visited web-sites I am afraid that you will have to accept that the language of your contributions get some scrutiny, personal as that may seem. All the best. Lklundin (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not your scrutiny of my language that is a personal attack. So you prefer to jest me around and won't apologize your patronizing attacks. Well, I'm embarrassed. Perusing your contributions, I see that I am not the only one. A snap once a time may happen, but it looks like you won't repent. I hope you take my writing for a moment of reflection.
I take this opportunity to point out your improper use of the Edit summary field. I invite you to read WP:SUMMARYNO, in particular the third and fourth point.
No grudge, please take this, hopefully useful, words only as a by note. --Robertiki (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Growth of photovoltaics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treehugger. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

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

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

See also:

Mz7 (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

anti-fascism: 2016-2017 anti-facist movement in the US[edit]

Hi,

Thanks for the tips. I went back and re-edited, this time with sources. I also didn't remove the original content. However, it is concerning to me that the only contribution in the section before I got there was a single anecdote about 50 rioters at Berkeley.

Best, Mjleone (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I am glad you were encouraged to go on contributing by my message and I hope that will continue. I write that because Wikipedia is created by people who are very different, so some are bound to be different from you. For example, until the most recent US presidential election, our article on Anti-fascism had a very long perspective, mostly concerning itself with events from WWII and the Cold War (and its aftermath). So a very detailed description of current events on that page is likely to be challenged, per our policy on WP:RECENTISM. Happy editing! Lklundin (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Slapping Edit Warring templates on my Talk page[edit]

Whoah, here, User::Lklundin, slow down. You're coming off mighty hair-trigger and imperious - and no way to treat someone whom you do or don't know whether is feeling their way around Wikipedia.
I did not revert your revert of my edit. You gave your reason. I let it stand, poh-tay-toe, poh-tah-toe.
I did restore legitimate edits to the lede that another user summarily reverted without explanation - and invited *them* to take it to Talk. That's not an edit war. It is if *they* don't take it there. Meanwhile, both that user and I have been leaving messages trying to sort things out on our respective Talk pages.
Give your laser sword a rest. Try being constructive instead. Yours, 24.61.220.85 (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. You can reduce the risk of being seen as a disruptive editor by creating your own account so your contributions become attributable to you. For now I have removed the 3RR-warning from your talk-page and I will leave it to you and the other editor(s) to sort out your differences. All the best, Lklundin (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Wow, a fuzzy kitten and a pork pie and a That's Hands Down the Most Stand-up Thing I've Ever Seen at Wikipedia Barnstar to you, User:Lklundin.
I tip my hat.
I dunno, is there a more gentle way of breaking the news to someone they might be descending into an edit war without realizing both its slippery slope and gravity? One that doesn't come off so imperious and heavy-handed? Wikipedia could sure use one. Given all your obvious talents perhaps in your spare time you could come up with one. It would pay huge dividends to the encyclopedia, as the one it has is aggressive, agitating, peremptory, and flat-out scary. Scares off alot of potentially helpful editors that way, or antagonizes them right into being dragged into something that will not end happily, with either a suspension or outright boot. Yours, 24.61.220.85 (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Claus Bundgård Christensen, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages RUC and Eastern front. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4[edit]

Hello Lklundin,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 652 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.


If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

empty ref sections[edit]

re: Your edit summary: (rm empty references section)

Thank you for your thankless job of cleaning up wikipedia. In general, empty sections are discouraged. However writing articles with references is the basic requirement in wikipedia, therefore ad empty "Reference" section is a good reminder . Besides sooner of later it is supposed to become filled :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

you wanted to discuss, i cannot find your response![edit]

i cannot find your response! meybe if you want we could discuss here 83.185.80.173 (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Lklundin, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:


If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump Jr.[edit]

Are you cool with the edit I made on the Donald Trump Jr. article? I'd like to know because another editor is giving me a hard time about it (due to it being a "reversion"), and suggested I ask you so there would be "consensus". Vjmlhds (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Lklundin- Vjmlhds is coming off of a months-long block. He's also now restricted to 0RR through October 25-- that means no reverts. I restored your version of the Trump, Jr., article due to Vjm's current editing restriction (not his fault w/ that first revert, but he's since been reminded by the blocking admin not to revert). I defer to you regarding the NPOV template, etc. Levdr1lp / talk 02:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I have added a reference that verifies that Trump JR did face criticism - that is a verifiable fact, so it belongs in the article. I have also added the qualifier "by some" to show the criticism wan't universal (also verified by the reference). That little added qualifier should soothe any WP:NPOV issues. So you were correct in your assertion about addressing the criticism, and all I did was show there were some that didn't feel that way. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Vjmlhds That sounds like a balanced way to present the information. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Lklundin, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

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

General project update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
  • Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Lklundin, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

  • On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
  • Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Lklundin, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

  • Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:


If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Lklundin. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Lklundin, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Backlog update:

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

Outreach and Invitations:

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

New Year New Page Review Drive

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

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
  • The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive[edit]

Hello Lklundin, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

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

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

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

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

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


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

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Lklundin, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
  • We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

  • We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
  • Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10[edit]

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

ACTRIAL:

  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

  • Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

  • While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018[edit]

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

ACTRIAL:

  • WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 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.

Deletion tags

  • Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

  • A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

  • There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

  • Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

  • The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

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, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

  • Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
  • The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive[edit]

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

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

  • As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
  • Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 100 review coin, 250 review coin, 500 review coin, 1000 review certificate.
  • Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018[edit]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

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

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules
  • New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
  • Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
  • Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
Editathons
  • Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
The Signpost
  • The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)