User talk:Bsherr/Archives/2019

Question about edit to blocking policy

Hi Bsherr, and thanks for the work you did the other day, cleaning up the blocking policy. I noticed one thing in your edit though, that I thought maybe wasn't really right. I tried to correct it myself, but someone reverted me saying "changes in policy must be discussed". It's kind of a minor thing, but you changed the links (in italics):

New accounts that engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and that appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating.<ref>See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel#Meatpuppets]]. See also: [[Wikipedia:Tag team]]</ref> See also the policy on [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppetry]] and [[WP:MEAT|meatpuppetry]].''

to

New accounts that engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and that appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating.<ref>See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel#Meatpuppets]]. See also: [[Wikipedia:Tag team]]</ref> See [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry]].

I can see that WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT both go to the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry article, so it does seem redundant to have them both. However, the preceding sentence is specifically about meatpuppetry (it comes from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel#Meatpuppets), so I thought it would be better to link to the section with "See {{section link|Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|Meatpuppetry}}." Also, Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is already linked as a "see also" at the beginning of that section. I asked the person who reverted me about it, but they haven't replied; in the meantime I thought I'd ask you what you think... --IamNotU (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yup, I had no problem with your change. I thought that the link to both was redundant, so I linked to the more general on the basis that it included the specific. But I think your point is well taken. Maybe some additional cleanup is warranted, as there are a lot of links in that section. --Bsherr (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go ahead and make the edit again. Thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Bot wrongly removed merge/rename targets from CFD log

Hi, please see this edit, where BsherrAWBBOT incorrectly and unhelpfully removed the target categories from a CFD nomination. Please check for any similar cases, and rectify them. – Fayenatic London 15:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the bot worked exactly as intended. Can you clarify what was problematic about the edit? --Bsherr (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see to what your are referring. Looks like it stripped out the targets. I'll fix it. --Bsherr (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Statute italicisation

Hey mate - thanks for your edits on Department of Transport (Victoria, 2019–). Just curious, is there a MOS reason not to italicise Australian statutes? It’s common practice outside WP and I’ve got a lot of edits to make if it’s wrong :) Triptothecottage (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Triptothecottage. Yes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Neither includes legal and constitutional documents. I'm American and it's our convention here not to. Do Australians italicize statutes? That's interesting. --Bsherr (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed we do – it was just a habit that I had never even thought of in detail until your edits. But, I glanced into a convenient law textbook and found italicised legislation, so I have done some more digging.

From the Australian Guide to Legal Citation, which is the most widely used in Australian legal circles: A citation of an Australian Act of Parliament should begin with the short title of the Act in italics... The year in which the Act was originally passed should appear in italics following the title.

I think I'll start a discussion on the MOS talk page; that's always a bit of a lottery but we'll see what happens. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Felix Hollaender

I'm not smart enough to have figured out what you've done to this sub-heading:

Output (selection)

===Novels===

• Agnes Feustels Sohn (Ullstein & Co. Berlin/Wien)
• Die Witwe (Ullstein & Co. Berlin/Wien)

Stage dramas

• Die heilige Ehe. 1892 (jointly with Hans Land)
• Katzengold. Schauspiel. 1890

But I don't think you meant to leave it looking the way it does now. Would you mind fixing it, please? As far as I can understand, the "Novels" subheading should look like the other subheadings that appear subsequently within the same section. My motive is not simply to restore the subheading to a format that looks consistent, but also to learn (from you...) how to do it! (I guess you were intending to improve the look of the thing somehow.) Thank you and best wishes Charles01 (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Charles01: Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Something about Template: Div col prevented the heading from rendering properly. I switched to an alternative, and that seems to have corrected it. --Bsherr (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. Success Charles01 (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

History merging

Hi. I don't want to throw cold water on an eager volunteer, but moving tasks from Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge/01 to {{history merge}} tags on top of the articles is like shuffling deck chairs. It's not really getting any work done, and it's not really getting it done any faster. The bot that writes the Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge/01 /02 /03 etc. reports is very good. In contrast to the previous Category:Possible cut-and-paste moves system, it finds very few, if any, false positives. So there isn't much value in a non-administrator working this task queue. Since I just recently added the MergeHistory column on the right side of the table, this task has been greatly sped up in that it can be done by just clicking that link, checking a box and clicking a button. Before it was necessary to do some copy-pasting. So the job may actually be done faster by keeping it here. Moving to {{history merge}} tags on top of the articles may actually slow things down because then it becomes more of a manual task instead of button-clicking.

I know when you click the MergeHistory links you just get a "permission error" so you can't see the nifty tool behind that link without the admin tools.

If you would like to actually do this task, you may run for administrator. If you're interested I can nominate you after I do my usual due diligence review of your editing history. Don't worry if you don't have much experience in other areas. Personally I'm more concerned when I see some bad work history here than a lack of good history. I'll make my best effort at selling you if I think you'll work for this as we do need more admins working on this to get it done before more years pass by. Regards, wbm1058 (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: No offense taken. That makes perfect sense, and I'm thrilled there's been some good momentum with the queue lately, thanks to you. I'd like to help, but my take is that I probably wouldn't pass an RfA. But if you have a moment, I'd be grateful for your thoughts. --Bsherr (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with you. Other than seeing you at this hist-merge backwater that even very few admins inhabit. I know that some of the RfA voters have some high expectations on participation in certain areas, but when I ran I had spent little time working at Articles for Deletion, and I still have spent relatively little time there. Likewise for requests for page protection and sockpuppet investigations. I mostly concentrate on mainspace work, moving pages, and moving pages the right way often requires the delete button. I'm not a fan of the page-mover system making round-robin moves, but since so many are intimidated by RfA I guess I have to accept it for now. You should be able to show some times when you have gotten into discussions to show that you have participated in a civil, non-tendentious manner. Participation on the "drama boards" is something I check for. No requirement that you edit much on the noticeboards, but if you do, your participation needs to reflect positively. wbm1058 (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Thanks very much for that advice. I think I'm heading in the right direction at least. Hope our paths cross again. --Bsherr (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Just a note about 2000 Toronto municipal election. That page was moved recently, after the /01 report was written, so the /01 report was stale with regard to the target of the histmerge. A little "gotcha" that I caught and then I redid the merge (my first merge was into the redirect because I didn't check). So these will go quicker if done before the hist-merge tables get too stale. Of course, after a while they can be regenerated. Oh, edits like this one show that you have some clue. I don't often see others making edits like that. Very good. wbm1058 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Yup, I noticed that move too (thanks to popups; I don't know how I'd live without popups). That fancy button you added might be too easy sometimes? And thanks so much for the compliment! If I can ever be helpful with anything you're working on, please let me know! --Bsherr (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox for territorial entities

I think one can merge all boxes for territorial entities into one. Area, borough, district, province, region, state, territory, zone, even "country", "union" (e.g. European Union). All just labels. Some entity, some surface on a stellar body - mostly the earth - for which certain properties apply. E.g. official currency - mostly related to "country", but in case of Eurozone (officially Euro Area), not even that. 77.11.64.113 (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 28#Infobox settlement wrappers 77.191.110.31 (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

New Page Reviews

Hi! I noticed you were asking for the NPP permission to be made permanent and so I checked last 8 undeleted articles you had patrolled and have some concerns. Those concerns are:

• 2018–19 Real Murcia season and 2019 Atlanta Blaze season seem to fail WP:NSEASON, specifically Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players.
• It is not clear to me that Nik Omar Nik Abdul Aziz passes WP:NPOL. From what I can tell he ran unsuccessfully for a state parliament seat and the translation of the article on Malay Wikipedia for Yayasan Dakwah Islamiah Malaysia does not suggest that this is a notability granting office.
• That Mats Grorud is not notable on specific or general notability guidelines. However this is borderline and on its own wouldn't be alarming but seems to fit a pattern.
• The complete lack of tagging on any reviewed article, most troublingly at Never Grow Up (book) which seems to be clearly notable but is only sourced right now to the publisher meaning it should have been a clear recipient of some sort of reference improving tag.

Is there other background or deeper thinking on any/all of these that could provide some context? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I suppose there isn't. I've tried to address your comments by going back to these articles. --Bsherr (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Bsherr. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, so do check back at WP:PERM/NPR in case this concerns your application. 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 encylopedia. 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Bsherr/Archives,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed upmerging

please see my proposal to upmerge Category:2018 murders in Iraq to three categories. Hugo999 (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Sidebar person

Sorry to say, but for your edit on Template:Sidebar person, you accidentally made Template:Sidebar person/US President unreadable. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Merge

Hi, when you propose a merge, open a discussion thread at the talkpage per this instruction (so that the "Discuss" link would lead to the discussion). Thanks. Brandmeister^talk 19:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Merging is not a policy or guideline, and need not be employed every time, particularly in circumstances that the reasons for the proposal are straightforward and obvious. Do you actually have concerns about the proposed merge? --Bsherr (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

That has been the normal procedure, because otherwise the link "Discuss" would lead to nowhere. Anyway, I object merging on the basis of WP:SIZE - the Chernobyl disaster article is too large to accommodate the Elephant's Foot, so WP:SPLIT comes into play. The Elephant's Foot itself is quite informative. Brandmeister^talk 19:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The "discuss" link leads to the talk page, which is a normal behavior. The link directing to a particular section is merely an option. See Template:Merge to#Other options. To centralize discussion, I think it best you initiate any talk about the merge on the talk page. --Bsherr (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Since you're are proposing the merge, it would be better that you initiate the discussion and state your reason. In the absence of discussion the tag may be removed after some time. Brandmeister^talk 22:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from reinstating merge tag without reason and amid objection of another user. This is not the way we edit. Thanks. Brandmeister^talk 18:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

No. If you disagree with the merge proposal, you should initiate a discussion on the talk page to attempt to reach consensus. Reverting the edit placing the template is not the proper way to oppose the change. --Bsherr (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary tagging without reason is unhelpful and unconstructive. As I mentioned above, per standard practice the discussion about merge is supposed to be initiated by the proposer. In the absence of a reason to merge the tags will be justly removed. Brandmeister^talk 21:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The placement of the template is not arbitrary. It is purposeful. And your discussion of standard practice is irrelevant and incorrect. If it were a standard practice, it would be in a guideline. It's isn't, so it's not. What is arbitrary is your removing some but not all of the templates from the affected articles. Stop that now. --Bsherr (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Brandmeister^talk 22:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings#Urgent: Tell Twitter and YouTube to remove these accounts that belong to the perpetrators of the attacks

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings#Urgent: Tell Twitter and YouTube to remove these accounts that belong to the perpetrators of the attacks. 2600:1700:BBD0:8050:796A:F7DB:EFDF:F2A6 (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"CNS and the Daily Mail are both problematic as Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Is there another you can reference for this content instead?"

I found this source from Daily Express, and this one from Memri. Which one is better? Greetings. Tajotep (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Not either, I'm afraid, at least in my opinion. The Daily Express is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources listed as generally unreliable, and MEMRI isn't properly a secondary source. I would suggest using the article talk page to get additional input. --Bsherr (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Lawyers and law students' signatures needed for Supreme Court amicus brief in favor of publishing the law

Hello, given your userbox I thought you might be interested in helping Carl Malamud's case for the public domain, crucial also for Wikisource: https://boingboing.net/2019/04/25/happy-law-day.html . Best regards, Nemo 21:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Bsherr/Archives,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

• Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
• Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

• A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
• There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
• What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Upmerge English operas singers by century categories

Please see my proposal to upmerge to the parent "British" category by century: Hugo999 (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:18th-century English opera singers & Category:19th-century English opera singers

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Bsherr/Archives,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Bsherr/Archives,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 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.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

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, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Pedophilia article

Hi, in the beginning sentence of the Pedophilia article the linking needs to be fixed. It links the word "Prepubescent" which redirects to the Preadolescence article. This should be fixed and that link should either be removed in favor of the word "children" being linked after "prepubescent" or to make it so that the "prepubescent children" part in the opening paragraph links to the Child article like what I just did. This is because the Preadolescence article deals with pre-teens (people either aged 9-12 or 10-12, and to a lesser extent, those aged 9-14), while pedophilia is defined as a sexual attraction to prepubescent children aged 13 and younger. So yes, while preadolescents can be victims of pedophilia, this disorder also extends to those in early childhood and infancy. Please fix this as the article is locked for new users. Chinnysushi (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Chinnysushi, um, no. After significant discussion, "prepubescent" was redirected to a section in the Preadolescence article that specifically discusses and distinguishes "prepubescent" from "preadolescent."

I'm also pinging Berean Hunter because your Wikipedia account is suspicious. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chinnysushi: Welcome to Wikipedia. I think it's rather harmless to add a wikilink to the word "children", so I'm going to do that. Concerning the wikilink on the word prepubescent, the issue you raise isn't so much whether the word should be wikilinked as what its target should be. That's best discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Have you edited Wikipedia before? --Bsherr (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Bsherr, linking "child" in this case is a WP:SEAOFBLUE matter; so I de-linked it. Per WP:Overlinking, it's also a common enough term that it doesn't need to be linked.

As for whether or not Chinnysushi has edited Wikipedia before, Chinnysushi appears to be this sock. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Bsherr/Archives,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 809 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Extraneous space

I also remove blank lines after section headings where the section starts with one or more mains or see alsos or images or pretty much anything except text. However, a blank line is extremely helpful when an editor is looking for the first word of a[ny] paragraph. ("Carriage throws" don't create actual lines, just as extra taps of the space bar don't matter after periods. Or in infoboxes.) Or so they tell me. --Brogo13 (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

notability

Hello, do you have An Email, I want to contact you about something.--صفاء (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@صفاء: Yes, I can be reached through Special:EmailUser. --Bsherr (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)