Mere existence in a database is insufficient to indicate notability (and the reference doesn't even bear out the claim about the village origin, so redirecting isn't suitable). No other in-depth sources located. Not suitable as a disambig as no article titles contain this string.
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Samee. 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 encyclopedia. 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. Anarchyte (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Please explain your rationale you appear to be conflating Jews and Judaism, can you not understand these are two separate things? Article in question Here my edit notes are clear and correct "not all Jews practice Judaism, not all Judaism practitioners are Jewish."The Original Filfi (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Because your edit to a long-standing lede is not grammatically sound and also constitutes original research. sameeconverse 08:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Point 1: What is original? Point 2: Fix it, do not revert.The Original Filfi (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
And being a edit to a lead that is 3 years old is not a reason to reject any potential improvement, reassessment or reconfigure of and on ANY article.The Original Filfi (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for improving articles in October! - Today: see yourself, read about a hymn praying to not be on earth in vain, about a comics artist whose characters have character (another collaboration of the "perennial gang", broken by one of us banned), and in memory of the last prima donna assoluta, Edita Gruberová. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
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, I was wondering why you reverted my changes from Pashtunistan to Khyber in the Punjab section. Pashtunistan is a concept that doesn't exist in actuality, Wikipedia uses real official names for regions and doesn't promote the advocacy of political projects.
Please let me know so we don't have to get into edit warring. Thanks.
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.
For emptying the category Indian births. Per WP:CFD it is not proper to empty a Category that is up for deletion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your present. There's nothing wrong with doing so when the concerned cat was recently created, doesn't follow the naming convention and has no scope of merger with some other category. Thanks again! sameeconverse 06:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)