Hi, Moe. I keep reaching for the delete button, but though it's gamecruft, I don't see the vandalism or the nonsense, and I can't do it. Is this a cleverly disguised hoax? Am I just obtuse? Thanks. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dlohcierekim. It was basically non-existent rules based on a season of the Yu-Gi-Oh! arc of gameplay. It has some basis of reality but some of it was nonsense. I probably should have been more specific. Regards, — MoeEpsilon 22:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 819 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.
Hello...Today is my birthday, so I checked the calendar to see who else shares my special day! So happy First Edit Day! LAIf you reply here, please {{Ping}} me. @ 09:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Lady Aleena:. It has been a long twelve years here, and I hope to stay a lot longer. Happy First Edit Day to you and everyone else sharing our day. Regards, — MoeEpsilon 17:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Moe Epsilon, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
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:
User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.
Hey, I have made less than 40 edits on Pro Wrestling Wikia between 2008 and present day. Now I have been banned by Dean27 for the following reasons which include "moving a page" and "messing up tabs." I didn't know moving a page was a bannable offense. I certainly didn't mess up any tabs. I can't contact Dean27 because I am banned for a period of six months. I've moved pages without incident before. Is it not policy that for naming conventions of articles for wrestlers be that they their titles are their most well known ring name? If yes, I thought so too. But apparently moving the Ultimo Dragon article from his real name of Yoshihiro Asai to Ultimo Dragon is apparently a banned offense. I've never had any issues with moving pages and renaming them in the past. I would contact him, but I am banned. He is on a power trip and the ban needs to be reversed as it has no merit. Thanks. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I am no longer an administrator on the Pro Wrestling Wikia and haven't been active in a whole, so I am unable to help address your problem realistically. If all you would like me to do is ask Dean27 to contact you or have me contact him to discuss this, I can do that. Regards, — MoeEpsilon 08:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be appreciated. I was banned for no reason. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fishhead2100: Sorry for the very late reply, but on September 10, you had been unblocked from the Wikia. There is a page called "Editing Tips" on that Wikia, which appear a lot more strict than most wikis. I would tread lightly. Moving pages, specifically, needs to be approved. Regards, — MoeEpsilon 16:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Moe Epsilon: I seen I was unblocked. Thanks for that. They are quick to pull the trigger without even so much as a warning. They need to relax. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fishhead2100: I tend to agree with that, but since there are minimal contributors and on a (mostly) private Wikia, there and a rule set that has been established for a few years. If asking for a page move is what needs to be done to ensure there isn't broken links/tabs, then I suppose just ask. Regards, — MoeEpsilon 03:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Moe Epsilon, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Technology update:
Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
General project update:
The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]
I thought this was a bit cheeky. --John (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my intention to be cheeky, but sometimes my words can appear that way I suppose. While Bright was a slightly bigger offender, the point was made very clearly by you both. As you two were a vast minority in this particular situation, excessive replies probably wasn't the best idea. Regards, — MoeEpsilon 16:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I, er, "see where you're coming from" there. --John (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was no intent of malice or disrespect if that is what you were thinking. I was just trying to make the discussion less volatile, which can happen when someone overly-engages in the conversation. Regards, — MoeEpsilon 18:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Moe Epsilon, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
Technology update:
The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225
General project update:
On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Hello Moe Epsilon, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.
Technology update:
Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.
General project update:
The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slightlymad: You must live up to your name — I am not an administrator, silly. It is my birthday, however, so thank you. Regards, — MoeEpsilon 04:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Moe Epsilon. 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.
Hello Moe Epsilon, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
Outreach and Invitations:
If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.
New Year New Page Review Drive
A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.
General project update:
ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Hello Moe Epsilon, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 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) [reply]
There is a discussion currently ongoing in which we are trying to reach a consensus if Diva Dirt is reliable. You can view the discussion here. There has only been a couple of people who have responded. We need a wider input from more people. You're response is needed and appreciated. Thanks. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really unsure as of right now based on what I see. I'll follow the discussion though and comment at a later time. Regards, — MoeEpsilon 22:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
what was my edit again? I forgot sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.52.82 (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your edit can be seen here. You added a category to the center of the article and they are typically placed at the bottom. However, you'll also notice the category is already at the bottom, so there's no need to add it again. Regards, — MoeEpsilon 03:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Moe Epsilon, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!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)
Hi, thanks for reincluding Big Show at the article List of WWE Personnel. BTW for further assistance you can seek through this website, I also done previously last reversions for Neville (wrestler) and Chris Jericho. I also try to do same thing as you did for Big Show. I address those wikipedians who instantly made changes to the articles of WWE when a wrestler exits company, they don't even see the website I suggested you. CK (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can also discuss these things at the article's talk page. CK (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to bring you up to speed, perhaps just a glance at List of International Cricket Council members will reassure you that cricket has a much wider global reach than say American football. I know I'm preaching to a non-convertible but since the discussion was closed before I could reply, it seemed important to let you know that cricket is, indeed, a global sport, unlike "grid iron", and reaches out to far more diverse individuals than say, "college basketball". I won't be responding in any form to this, but you ought to realise how wrong Sandstein etc were when it came to questioning the significance of cricket. In fact, in the latter case, it's somewhat embarrassing for an admin to make such an error, especially since this is English language Wikipedia where we have a billion readers from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa, England, Australia, New Zealand, the West Indies, Zimbabwe, etc etc etc, all of whom are far more interested in "cricket" than in ice hockey or college basketball or even fully fledged "international" American football. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're talking about with the American football bit because I specifically said I agreed to that extent. Gridiron football and cricket are in the same boat; they are both extremely popular in the areas they are played and no one outside of those regions care about it. I simply disagree that a non-Olympic sport (cricket) could in any way, shape or form be more popular than sports than are (basketball and ice hockey). The difference between 'college' and 'professional' basketball in this sense is negligible because both amateur (college) and professional both play at international level at the Olympics. When cricket makes it to the Olympics again, it could be worth a debate. — MoeEpsilon 21:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that argument is pure strawman. Beach volleyball is in the Olympics, as is curling. So that holds no water at all, but you already knew that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really straw man some invalid argument about how your region sport is more popular than my region sport, or whatever. I never argued gridiron football was more popular than cricket, as cricket has more countries who participate in that sport. However, neither one is a "global" sport. Now that I read it again, I don't understand your logic on how cricket is global. As I read it, it seems your point of argument was that cricket is more global because it has lots of fans and/or English readers on Wikipedia? That's illogical. The English Wikipedia caters primarily to the native English-speaking portions of the world, in order of number of native speakers: The US, the UK, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Ireland and New Zealand. Do you think the Spanish Wikipedia cares that there are 41 million Spanish speaking people in the United States? No, because it's a second language here. They care about topics, cultures and sports in the native Spanish-speaking world. Indians, Afghans, Pakistanis, etc. are not native speakers of English and, at best, speak it as a secondary language. I say this because there isn't "billions of fans" without India. India has a population of 1.3 billion alone, while the other 11 ICC member countries population is 606 million combined. I guess that's also beyond the point in that just because there's a billion people somewhere, doesn't mean a billion people like cricket. If your whole point is that England, Ireland, Australia, etc. care about it and they are native English-speaking countries, yes, they are. That doesn't make it a global sport though, sorry. There was only ten countries that counted as "full members" of the ICC as of 2016, adding two more the next year. You don't have a global sport without the rest of the globe participating, and that doesn't change with a countries population/number of fans/number of editors on Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, if there's more countries participating in curling and beach volleyball than there are in cricket, and in the Olympics no less, I know which one is more "global." But what do I know, I suppose. — MoeEpsilon 22:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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
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.
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.
Just a note - I just removed the "Cone" surname and got reverted. I removed it and informed the editor. May need more eyes there. BerleT (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't erase years of previous consensus to not include nicknames. It doesn't matter what billed nickname they have, nicknames are not to be included in infoboxes, results tables or championship histories. If you want to change that consensus, go to WP:PW and get it. — MoeEpsilon 14:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hello Moe Epsilon, 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: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.
Then talk to me about it. You made a blind revert talking about it being a "different championship". The edit itself does not even reference by name a championship. The record, is that he was the longest reigning heavyweight champion in WWE's modern era, which includes reigns with the WWE Championship, World Heavyweight Championship, Universal Championship, etc. until Lesnar surpassed him. It's not inaccurate, nor is it some irrelevant factoid. It's a pretty significant record. — MoeEpsilon 07:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion should be on the talk page, I'm not the only person you've been reverting for two days.LM2000 (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to directly reply to my comment, or just ignore me as some kind of process bot? — MoeEpsilon 09:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Silence says a lot. — MoeEpsilon 15:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
