User talk:Loriendrew/Archive 12
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
New pages patrol newsletter
Hello Loriendrew,
Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!
October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.
PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.
Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.
Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.
Reminders:
- You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
- Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
November Articles for creation backlog drive
Hello Loriendrew:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
"Wikipedia:Childname" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Wikipedia:Childname has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 3 § Wikipedia:Childname until a consensus is reached. — kashmīrī TALK 18:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive
| New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Revert on "Human height" Page
Hello @Loriendrew
My edit to the page human height was reverted and changed back to:
The tallest living man is Sultan Kösen of Turkey at 251 cm (8 ft 3 in) and the tallest living woman is Siddiqa Parveen of India at 234 cm (7 ft 8 in).
This statement is not backed by any source, and the Wikipedia article on Siddiqa Parveen states that she was "formerly listed by Guinness World Records as the tallest living woman", which I believe makes it clear that for whatever reason, that title no longer holds. The current wikipeda article on Rumeysa Gelgi states that, as of the present, "she is the tallest living woman confirmed by Guinness World Records." The Guinness World Records official website also confirms the same (https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/tallest-woman-living-). I am restoring the edit, this time citing the Guinness World Records page as a source.
I hope this clears up any confusion, and I do admit that it is quite unclear, as any 'official' sources on this matter are scant, and the data seems to conflict with each other (Siddiqa Parveen is stated to be 234 cm, but Rumeysa Gelgi is apparently only 215.16 cm; I am not aware why Siddiqa Parveen does not hold the record as of now, but Guinness clearly states as such).
Apologies for any confusion or lack of clarity in my writing.
Regards,
EmperorBonaparte
EmperorBonaparte (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
If/Then
The copyvio goes back further than the two revisions you've tagged for revdel. You need to identify when the material was first added as it's all those revisions that will require deletion. Nthep (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Think I found the correct range and updated the notice. My apologies.. have not had much revdel experience.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- No apology needed. Getting your head round the scale of some copyvios and how far back they go can be quite staggering. I know it shocked me when I first started looking at them. Nthep (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- It went a lot further back, to November 2013! Nthep (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am so sorry, was looking for some specific phrases which popped up within my range. If we do this again, just send me the "More!" meem and I will dive further.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'd suggest Wikipedia:Who Wrote That? as a tool for finding out who added the text. Nthep (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am so sorry, was looking for some specific phrases which popped up within my range. If we do this again, just send me the "More!" meem and I will dive further.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
"Battle of Sialkot(1761)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Battle of Sialkot(1761) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 18 § Battle of Sialkot(1761) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Steve Earle
Hello I saw you added to Steve Earle's page that he has a daughter with a groupie. I am not a regular editor here, but think this should at least be framed as speculation. The source you used is an unsourced aggregation site, and as I noted on the talk page there, the claim is unsubstantiated. There are two well researched biographies of Earle, which I think should take precedence. St. John does mention the claim by Baker, and it may well be true, but Earle denied it and there was never an attempt to prove paternity at the time. It is not impossible that she has since used Ancestry or something similar, but there would need to be a source. 131.238.215.0 (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- This information was not added by me, just moved it into chronological order and formatted the entry and citation.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Department Q
Hi, thanks for your message, which was the first I saw of the merge. Yes, I felt there were enough references for a stand alone page, especially with the change in location and size of the production (Netflix) Hildreth gazzard (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Why rvs an "Eric" removed because
so i add "Eric Filatov (born 2018)" and later was removed 2001:44C8:4707:AFC8:E8C5:BBF1:59C6:C37A (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Entries to lists should have an existing article. If Filatov has an article made, then they can be added to the list.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
- Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
- Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
- Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
- Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
- Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
- Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
- Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
- Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
- Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
- Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
- Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
- Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
- Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
- Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
- Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
- Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
- Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)