Wikipedia

User:Insertcleverphrasehere/sandbox

< User:Insertcleverphrasehere

Random edit

Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion_as_inappropriate_cross-namespace_redirects

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_health_initiative

{{sources exist}}

Invite list: User:Insertcleverphrasehere/NPR_invite_list

User:Insertcleverphrasehere/NPP awards

Edit Backlog chart Quarry profile

Example queries for developing new queries

Wikipedia:Help_desk and Wikipedia:Teahouse

page curation global log

WikiBlame

Pending AfC submissions

Discord link

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Media_Bias/Fact_Check

Trout edit

([[File:Rainbow_trout_transparent.png|20px]] Smack!) I'm gonna have to [[WP:Trout|trout]] you there.

Draftify Log edit

User:Insertcleverphrasehere/Draftify log

To Do List: edit

https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/

https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill/index.php

https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=all-agents&range=latest-90&pages=Joseph_Sledge%7CLife_Flight_(New_Zealand)%7CMiracle_of_Sound

[Ngram Viewer]

User:Gracemckenzie

Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
Wikipedia:Snowball_clause
Wikipedia:Adminitis
WP:CRYPTIC

Sources edit

PF2050 sources

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/284/1860/20170799

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/50180/title/Driving-Down-Pests/


Miracle of Sound sources:

http://nzgamer.com/features/1523/level-7-an-evening-with-miracle-of-sound.html

http://gamingnewstime.de/resident-evil-7-miracle-of-sound-musikvideo/ --not in depth enough, but perhaps to discuss if he does another resident evil song


Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also


Barnstar Templates: edit

 

 

 

 

 

  The Geology Barnstar
Nice new article at Waukesha Biota. Love to see nicely fleshed out new articles come through the new pages feed (so much so that I created this custom barnstar, just for you)! Keep up the good work. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

(Apparently there is actually a Geology Barnstar, but whatever!)

  The Lighthouse Barnstar
Nice new article at Scarborough Pier Lighthouse. I noticed that there is no Lighthouse Barnstar, so I created this one, just for you! Keep up the good work. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Sig edit

 InsertCleverPhraseHere 

 InsertCleverPhraseHere 

{{subst:User:Insertcleverphrasehere/signature}}

InsertCleverPhraseHere 03:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

— InsertCleverPhraseHere 11:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

— InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 07:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

— CleverPhrase InsertHere 06:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

— InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 04:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

— Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

— Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 16:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

— Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)(or here)(or here) 10:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Quotes edit

Science is the adjustment of belief based on what is observed.

Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved.

Ideology is the denial of reality, despite observation, so that belief can be preserved.

Holding Pen edit

As part of our work on ACTRIAL, Nettrom has created a dashboard showing live page creation statistics, which are automatically updated on a daily basis. This dashboard includes all page creation events, even for subsequently deleted articles. Currently available views include:

Stats are available for other wikis as well.

Planet 9 PBH sources edit

Top quality science news sources:

Other quality sources (generally reliable sources, but in some cases might be going beyond their normal area of reporting, especially towards the bottom of this list):

Lower quality sources (unclear reliability, posted for completeness to show that it has circulated so widely as to become clickbait):

Ok... that's enough... I kept finding more when digging through the google search results and had to stop somewhere. At this point I'd be more surprised to find that a news source HADN'T covered the story.

Other stuff:

One source Admin/Autopatrolled creations edit

Proposals? edit

Interviews don't contribute to notability edit

Add text to notability guidelines clearly stating that interviews with the subject do not contribute to notability (not independent of the subject).

New CSD criteria for unambiguous undeclared paid editing edit

  • UPE is a violation of the ToU
  • Therefore new articles that are clearly UPE should be deleted on sight (with notable topics recreated by unconnected editors or disclosed paid editors)
  • Paid editors may ask for a WP:REFUND if they disclose their paid editing.
      • possibly won't work (how to separate COI submissions from UPE submissions?)

Three strikes rule for paid editors adding adverts or promotional articles edit

  • Editors who create three or more promotional articles within a single year should be banned.
  • Includes G11 CSD, AfD nominations where consensus regards the original contribution as an advert (even if it is fixed during the AfD discussion, or deleted for other reasons, i.e. lack of notability), and uncontested PROD candidates verified by an admin as an advert.
  • Editors must have been warned that they may be blocked from editing if they submit more promotional/advert material prior to submitting their most recent promotional/advert submission.

Automatic Copyvios check on creation of new articles edit

  • Whenever a new article is created, prior to 'publishing' going through, the article is automatically run through the copyvios detector.
  • If the submission has a confidence of 50% or higher, a warning message pops up warning the user that they might be submitting a copyright violation (link to the copyvios report) and giving a bit of information on what is ok to copy and what isn't (i.e. you can't copy from your own website unless the content there is under a suitable licence).
  • The warning asks the submitting user if they want to proceed or not, and if they do, it publishes the article but also flags the article for New Page Patrol as a potential copyright violation needing review.

AfC Reform Ideas edit

  • Require that reviewers do a search for notabilitybefore declining based on notability (WP:BEFORE for AfC).
  • Overturn WP:NMFD. At least with regards to multiple-declined drafts where the submitter has been told several times that the subject is not yet notable (not with regard to userspace content or unsubmitted drafts).
--Not needed, already common practice for disruptive cases.
  • Discussion at MfD for repeatedly resubmitted drafts (on third decline with unaddressed issues reviewers are recommended to list the draft MfD for discussion, if notable it should be moved to main space, if not-notable it should be deleted, or if the topic looks promising for future notability, userified with a prohibition on submitting without new high quality sources).
--wastes just as much time in the discussion as re-reviewing does. Really bad cases end up there anyway eventually.
  • Reviewers should not review the same submission more than once (prohibition does not apply to comments). Repeated declines from the same reviewer decrease collaboration in the AfC workspace, a frequent criticism of AfC.
  • Template fix to make it clear the AfC is optional to autoconfirmed users (hidden by default for non autoconfirmed users)

Related to the idea of a re-work of the template system:

  • The AfC reviewer gives a rating as to the notability of the topic first (i.e. notable/likely notable/likely non-notable/not notable), reporting this to the author. If notable and demonstrated to be notable with sources, the article is immediately published (same as now).
  • If non-notable or likely non-notable, the review ends here and is declined. Authors may request a second opinion (via a button), but on the second non-notable assessment (verification) this button is removed from the template.
  • If the assessment is 'notable' or 'likely-notable', but the submission is not supported by references, the reviewer reviews the submission itself and provides feedback as to structural problems/current sources/other sources available etc, and marks the page as 'pending edits by author' with a button "notify reviewer that you are done".
  • Flip the system on its head: AfC reviewers provide advice, and indicate what the likely outcome would be if the user moved it to main space, then offers a button for the author to move it to main space themselves. Reviews would have to be auto delayed for the 4 days of autoconfirmed for non-autoconfirmed users. (complicated due to the 10-edit rule of auto-confirmed)

Stubify notable but promotional articles edit

Shortcuts

Articles written by editors with a conflict of interest often have severe issues. It may be heavily biased, full of original research, self-published or primary sources, press releases used in place of reliable sources, or contain so much promotional material that little else remains. If the article is exclusively promotional, it should be tagged for deletion per the G11 speedy deletion criteria.

In many cases it is clear that the topic is notable, but significant effort would be required to clean up the article; either to sort through a multitude of poor or inappropriate references for the few useful ones, because the writing in the article is so biased that it would need to be copy-edited line by line throughout the article, or else because reliable sources are used but the text they are referencing is not neutral in summarising the content of those sources. The effort required in these cases can be daunting, and in these cases it is often better to start over from scratch.

For new articles that are promotional or otherwise problematic (as described above), and where it is clear that the author has a significant conflict of interest and/or has engaged in paid editing, the following steps are recommended:

  • Remove the content of the article and replace it with two or more neutral sentences describing the subject. If these can be salvaged from the existing content, that can be done, but rewriting from scratch is preferable.
  • Add two or more reliable sources that are independent of the subject and discuss it with significant coverage. These can be salvaged from the article, but be sure to check them thoroughly if so. Add a references section and {{reflist}} template, or retain that secion if already present.
  • An infobox may be retained if the content within it is neutral, though it may be paired down to the essentials.
  • Add a stub tag to the article.
  • Notify the author of the article of the COI editing guideline and tell them that you have reverted the article to a neutral stub.
  • If the author reverts your change, report the article at the conflict of interest noticeboard so that other editors can chose between the two versions of the article.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Insertcleverphrasehere/sandbox&oldid=1071068432"