If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you. --John B123 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[]

Need to ask somethingEdit

Hi, so what I'm writing here is not about what you wrote on my talk page, instead, it is about two articles that were created on the same thing - Mixed individual BC1 events. I have written this on Boccia at the 2020 Summer Paralympics talk page. These two articles, Boccia at the 2020 Summer Paralympics – Mixed individual BC1 and Boccia at the 2020 Summer Paralympics – Mixed Individual BC1, both have different contents but covers the same topic - to key in the results of those events. And now it is a headache, on which should be used and which should not, and yes one of that created pages was mine but I don't mind anything. Thank you. Jr2006Venz (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Jr2006Venz, see Talk:Boccia at the 2020 Summer Paralympics. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Please add categoriesEdit

Hey, I would be grateful if you could add categories to List of largest ruling leaders by population.

I tried but failed to understand how to. Appu (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Appu, I've added one but not sure of what other categories are applicable. What categories did you try to add? Regards. --John B123 (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Oh! Ok. Now that you have added the template, I know how to add further.Thank you. Appu (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

Hi, I'm Hughesdarren. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Church of the Ascension, Timoleague, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Hughesdarren (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Hughesdarren, can I ask why? Regards. --John B123 (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi John, Sorry, I thought I had just reviewed it myself. I don't know what went wrong with that one. My apologies. Regards Hughesdarren (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Hughesdarren, no problem, I've done the same myself. I think this occurs if somebody else reviews the page while you're still checking it over. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[]

I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

Hi, I'm DGG. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Salvatore Novo, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]

I contested the Venktesh Shukla page you marked for speedy deletion. Input on how I proceed?Edit

Hi John, I'm not sure all the steps I must go through to contest this, can you please advise? This is what I wrote on the talk page I contested it.

"This page should not be speedily deleted because: I wrote this page from the ground up, it has zero content derived from whatever prior page had existed -- I was not involved with and can't find the prior deleted page to compare it; it looks like it was written and deleted >3 years ago.

The person this page discussed (Venktesh Shukla) is noteworthy based on "receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Further, they have had a noteworthy impact on the business climate for Indian entrepreneurs through volunteer service over many years, as president of two different major non-profit organizations.

I cited every fact on the page from independent, reliable sources that met Wikipedia's source criteria, including reviewing Wikipedia deprecated sources to ensure they all qualified sources.

If you have problems with specific elements of the page, please let me know. And I will repair them." --Mukis (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Mukis, an admin will look at the page and review taking into consideration your objection on the talk page. To me the article comes across as promotional, almost like a bio on a company website. It also seems to be more about the companies he is involved with than the man himself. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
I see the article has been moved to draft. You can work on it there and submit it for review when you are ready. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi John, thank you for explaining why you flagged it; that helps. I just deleted all but a couple company names -- I had mistakenly thought I was *supposed* to list all the relevant companies.
Before I submit the Venktesh Shukla draft for formal review, would you be willing to scan the page to see if anything else strikes you as a 'flag' for me to correct? - Mukis (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
It's looking a lot better now. I'd try to include more personal information, childhood, education etc if that's available. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Umu ObiligboEdit

Hi Mr John B123, Good morning from this part of Nigeria 😅. I moved a work from one of my sandboxes to main space after finishing the creation. This time around I decided to wait and see if it will be checked or reviewed by anyone. Hmmmmmm. It wasn't. and that's why I come to you everytime since I started moving from sandbox. When I use to create in main space directly, it won't be up to one hour before a reviewer will tag it for an error or a mistake or something else or even review it in some cases. It seems like those articles moved from sandbox does not reflect in New pages feed. Please tell me if there's a tag I'm not adding or if there's anything I'm not doing right. Because coming to meet you everytime is... That aside, please check and help review Umu Obiligbo. Thanks in advance. Idoghor Melody (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Idoghor Melody, articles moved from sandbox show in the New Pages Feed. There are currently 5,000 articles in the queue. You have been fortunate in the past that your articles have been reviewed quickly, but there is no guarantee on this. I've marked Umu Obiligbo as reviewed. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you Mr John, what you're doing for me is really encouraging me to do more, and I'm grateful, Thank you very much. Idoghor Melody (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Polychain Capital (Draft review + Move request)Edit

Draft:Polychain Capital

Hi John. I am creating an article for this company using a completely new format. Seeking your review and if its ok can you please help move it since the page, Polychain Capital is a redirect. Thanks-Imcdc (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Imcdc, it looks ok to me so I've moved it to Polychain Capital. You don't need any special permissions to move an article to a name already occupied by a redirect providing the redirect has no history, ie it hasn't been changed since it was created. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks -Imcdc (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Thank You! FWd82 (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi FWd82, thanks, most kind of you. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Moment (Dark Tranquillity album)Edit

The album meet the criteria of notability, as it appear in many music charts

The recording has appeared on any country's national music chart.

World wide: ch Peak: 16 / weeks: 1 de Peak: 17 / weeks: 1 at Peak: 24 / weeks: 1 fr Peak: 181 / weeks: 1 be Peak: 196 / weeks: 1 (Vl)

	 Peak: 50 / weeks: 1 (Wa)

se Peak: 14 / weeks: 1 fi Peak: 9 / weeks: 2 it Peak: 96 / weeks: 1 es Peak: 71 / weeks: 1


Hi Realxsalo, there was nothing about that in the article. Articles need to show the subject is notable. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 22:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]
First, excuse me for my late answer. The article shows that the album peaks in many european countries, im going to reverse your edit.
Realxsalo the article mentions nothing of the sort although the single reference shows that. Please read my edit summary when I redirected the artcle: Redirected - virtually unreferenced - see WP:BURDEN before restoring Please comply with WP:BURDEN and add references to verify the content. --John B123 (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Contested blank and redirectsEdit

Hi John B123! I noticed that you were recently involved in a small dispute at Molly-Mae Hague, which is similar to the one you and I recently had the other day at First Middle School of Changsha. The proper procedure for this area isn't as settled as I wish it was, but I just wanted to point you to this CENT-listed RfC from last year, which considered the topic and found that Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting. I'd suggest following that protocol for future disputes to avoid any potential edit wars. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Sdkb. I don't think it's as simple as that. In the case of Molly-Mae Hague a sock was causing the problems, at least initially. These articles are not redirected for the fun of it, but are the problematic articles at the back of the NP queue. Simply restoring these problematic articles can cause problems with WP:BURDEN, such as at First Middle School of Changsha, and in the case of BLPs, WP:BLP. Sending these articles to AfD can also cause problems, look at the grief Onel5969 got for doing just that at ANI. There are some editors that will try and save everything, no matter how hopeless they are. In these cases sending to AfD just wastes people's time. I have no objections to redirects being restored to articles providing they make an attempt to resolve the problems. On a side note, I've never come across the {{Boosterism}} tag before. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for that perspective. I should add that I've certainly seen how prolific you and Onel5969 are at NPP reviewing, and I know how thankless of a job it can be, so I hope I'm not coming across as badgering you for doing it. Regarding how to handle these situations, though, I do think that if there's a reasonable question as to whether or not a topic is notable, it deserves to have its day at AfD, where article rescuers will at least come across it and have the opportunity to try to save it. If it's hopeless, yeah, they'll be wasting their time, but the community never has too much trouble finding consensus to delete/redirect when it's warranted, and it's important that that decision be made by the community rather than unilaterally. For BLPs, I agree that the presumption should be to remove material not explicitly supported, but otherwise, our standard for what warrants a page is notability, not quality (see WP:Deletion is not cleanup), so the path for articles with problems is just to tag as needed and preserving the content so that it can be improved in the future. I don't have any delusion that First Middle School of Changsha will reach the level of development of its U.S. counterparts like Stuyvesant High School any time soon, but there would never be any question about notability for those pages, and it won't be able to start developing unless it's allowed to exist. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Sdkb. I didn't take you comments as any sort of criticism. On the subject of reverting redirection of articles, there is already an established policy on that at WP:ATD-R. Whilst not disagreeing with the RfC, the policy puts the onus on those objecting to redirection to discus (either on the talk page or at AfD) before restoring the article. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for finding that paragraph. It's very confusingly worded with the current text of A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect. Suitable venues for seeking a consensus if a redirection is challenged include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. I read that to mean "If the change is disputed (via a revert bringing back the page), an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect (i.e. before deleting and redirecting again). It appears you're interpreting "restoring the redirect" to mean the opposite, i.e. bringing back the page. Looking at the three relevant discussions (the 2018 RfC, the 2020 wording tweak, and the 2020 RfC I linked above), I think my interpretation was the original intention. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Looking at it again, I think you're probably right. Definitely poorly worded. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Miss Wool of America PageantEdit

Hi! John, Sir, Kindly review the subject page. Thanks and regards RV (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi RV, all done. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you so much and best regards. RV (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]

New Quantity SystemEdit

Thank you for reviewing the article I started. 😁 Tewdar (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Tewdar, no problem. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
BTW, do I have to request that someone assess the article, or does that get done automatically? I've only created two articles so I'm not really sure how it works. Tewdar (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Tewdar, new pages get added the the Special:NewPagesFeed automatically which is the feed that new page reviewers use. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Aha, found it. But why does it say, "No citations" in big red letters? I thought it was quite well referenced? Tewdar (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The software behind the feed looks for <ref> tags to determine if the article is referenced. If you use {{sfn}}, {{sfnp}} or {{harvnb}} for referencing it doesn't pick up that it has references. It's not really a problem as things like referencing are checked manually when a page is reviewed. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)--John B123 (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Oh, okay. I used {{sfnp}} so that solves that. Thanks a lot for your help. Tewdar (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]

You've got mailEdit

Hello, John B123. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Idoghor Melody (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Winch dyeing machineEdit

Hello John, Sir, Please review the winch machine. Thanks RV (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi RV, looks like it's already been reviewed. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks anyway! Best regards. RV (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Querétaro Aerospace ClusterEdit

Hello John, I'm working on the "one source" tag you added to this page. I found an excellent additional source from Harvard Business School but am having trouble bringing up the references list (there's only one at this point). Shenrichs (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Shenrichs, adding {{reflist}} will bring up the references. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks John B123. It's my first time doing an edit to add a source; also it's unusual in that the existing source in the original was for free-content material. You might take a look at it and let me if any problems. Shenrichs (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Shenrichs, it could do with some more link to other articles, otherwise it looks ok. --John B123 (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Draft:Hans AirwaysEdit

Hi John B123, Please can you review the Hans Airways page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Airways - which I have written. Hopefully I have created it properly straight away this time. Feel free to make any other suggestions to make this page better. Thanks and regards. MW1011 (talk)

Hi Shenrichs, generally airlines are not regarded as notable until they get their operator's licence. Otherwise it looks ok. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi John B123, the Hans Airways post was actually from MW1011. I've added a heading for it here. Shenrichs (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Shenrichs, apologies for that. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi John B123, I take your point, however there are countless examples of other start-up airlines without AOCs which have Wikipedia profiles for example Norse Atlantic Airways (which you helped me publish before), as well as Odyssey Airlines in the UK - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey_Airlines. I feel that its important to start telling the story of these airlines while they are in their formative months. Thanks again for your consideration. MW1011 (talk)

Hi MW1011, there seems to be enough sources to meet WP:GNG so I've moved it to mainspace. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi John B123, Thanks again for your help. MW1011 (talk)

Salu (cloth)Edit

Hello John, Sir, Kindly review the Salu (cloth). Regards RV (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi RV, all done. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you so much and best regards. 00:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


Hi John, Sir, Kindly review the following stubs.

Hi RV, I've marked Cottonade as reviewed. Somebody else has already reviewed Etamine. I'm withdrawing from reviewing so this will be the last page I can review for you. All the best for the future. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
John, Sir, Please don't do that. Without your encouragement and guidance, I personally would not be the same. We respectfully request that you reconsider your decision. There are many who require your assistance. Your support and guidance has been invaluable throughout the process. I'll miss your reviews, which have a special place in my heart. Warm regards RV (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi RV, I'll still be about if you need any advice, although probably not as much as before. Thanks for your kind words. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Footprints (Duncan Mighty album)Edit

Hi Mr John, greetings from this end... Please check and help review Footprints (Duncan Mighty album). Thanks in advance sir. Idoghor Melody (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Idoghor Melody, I've marked the article as reviewed. I'm withdrawing from reviewing so this will be the last page I can review for you. All the best for the future. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Ooops.😑😑 Thanks alot for all the ones you've reviewed for us, we really appreciate sir. But why are you withdrawing? --Idoghor Melody (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Idoghor Melody, it's a long story.... Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Mr John, I would really love to know why even if it's long, please can you email?--Idoghor Melody (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Mr John, I'll still be about doing other things. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Idoghor Melody, let's just say I haven't seen eye to eye with some of the admins. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Oh, Ok. I wish you all the best Sir John. But hope you're not dropping all your current badges?🤔 --Idoghor Melody (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I’ll miss youEdit

We haven’t interacted that much but I learned a lot from following your taggings and was always in awe of your volume and accuracy. I completely understand why you’ve had enough and I hope you find more rewarding things to do instead. All the best. Mccapra (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Mccapra, thanks for your kind works. All the best for the future. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I concur and 100% agree with how you described the brutality of some wannabe dictators among the administrators. You were doing the most ungratefui job on the project and that's how you're mistreated at the end of the day LouisAlain (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi LouisAlain, thanks. I know you too have had problems with certain people, but I've always found your articles well written and informative. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Unblock requestEdit

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

John B123 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is This is a Vodafone mobile IP. John B123 (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Decline reason:

Since this is an open proxy block I cannot soften it; it seems to be a Vodafone VPN as well. Better to refer you to WP:IPECPROXY and suggest you ask for your account to be exempt from these blocks. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Daniel Case: Ok thanks. --John B123 (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Non Review of new articleEdit

Dear JohnB123,

My concerns are that I’ve written an encyclopedic article for a while and it’s yet to be reviewed.

Kindly check it out for Me please - Lonadek B.Korlah (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi B.Korlah, I'm no longer carrying out new page reviews so I'm afraid I can't help you. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you for your response JohnB123. YOu have been one reviewer I’ve always admired. Kindly recommend someone who still reviews new pages for me.

Thank you B.Korlah (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I’m still waitingEdit

Hello Celestina, I’m still waiting on your update on the Lonadek you said you were gonna help me with.


B.Korlah B.Korlah (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Sorry wrong message!!! B.Korlah (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi B.Korlah, no problem. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Thanks! Robertgombos (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Robertgombos, thanks, most kind of you. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You're welcome! Robertgombos (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]


Hello John B123 !

Could you please advise on how to properly post the contributions I am making to the Microcredential entry ? I never started a Wikipedia entry before but I think I am posting legitimate content on the matter, being deeply involved in the topic.

You have been reverting all my updates - I can't understand why, so I am looking for your guidance.

the last update is particularly significant as the starting point toward a universal definition of microcredential by UNESCO, Here is the webinar and soon the full report will be made public.

The entry was updated with the draft definitions provided by UNESCO - the idea of the expert team was to crowdsource the fine tuning of the definition by creating an entry in Wikipedia. We are all excited about this opportunity and I was asked to handle that, but unfortunately all my edits get reverted to "microdegree".

The entry has not global visibility and we want to continue to drive revisions from the global education community to it.

What is the right way to engage ? Why are my updates reverted immediately ?

Psykoreactor (talk) 8:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance and support.

Simone Ravaioli (simone.ravaioli@digitary.net)

Hi Simone. There seems to be some misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. It is an encyclopaedia not a dictionary - see WP:NOTDIC. Definitions are handled by the sister project Wiktionary. Wikipedia is also not a vehicle to garner public opinion. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello John B123 and thanks for the response,
The definition is only one facet of the articulation of microcredentials - it is a conversation starter that we would like the education community to build on, leveraging the momentum created by the UNESCO Report mentioned above. We expect there to be more sections like: Use Cases, examples, Policies references, implementations, technical aspects, recognition guidance, platforms etc.
By many accounts, microcredentials are the currency of the future of learning.
-> For these reasons, I think a Wikipedia entry is needed for microcredentials
In some respects it is similar to the microdegree entry, only the conversation around microcredential is much wide in scope and relevance in the domain. In fact, microdegrees are a subset of microcredentials. Please refer to the recent comment made on the Talk page of microdegree by Phil Barker
On Sept. 21st at 11am UTC, we will be hosting a follow up webinar open to anyone to continue the conversation "toward a common definition of microcredentials" started by UNESCO. This work if very much in progress and requires the contribution by the open community - we thought the crowdsourcing through Wikipedia was a great way to support the work. This is why I started this entry (with no previous wikipedia experience). During this event we intended to share the wikipedia entry and encourage the participants and community to direct the discourse there.
-> I would like to ask if you could put up the starting prompt (draft definition) I had provided and refrain to revert back to microdegrees

Psykoreactor (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Simone. For a subject to have a page on Wikipedia it needs to meet the notability guidelines - see WP:N. These guidelines are based on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I note the article was last reverted to a redirect by Scope creep, unless they have a different view then I don't see it qualifies for an article. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi @John B123:, @Psykoreactor:. They seem to be a new thing that has come existance during covid in the UK, but whether it is notable as a subject, i'm not sure. I reverted the present article, as it read like a whitepaper with a single social media ref, that is unacceptable. If it is recreated it needs to be academic examination of what they are, why they came into existance, what need the serve and so on. I would suggest creating a draft article so it can be reviewed. scope_creepTalk 16:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi @John B123:, @Scope creep:. Thank you for the feedback on the Wikipedia contributing protocol. I will take the advise and start a draft page in my "Sandbox" where I will try to catalyze reviews (content and format) before suggesting it again as a public page. I believe there is a compelling case for having an entry for microcredentials. The term is already mentioned extensively in the microdegree page, which is a good sign of evidence. As a matter of fact, what current research and practice seem to suggest is that microcredentials might be the parent term of microdegree. Thanks also to Phil Barker for the support in making sense of wikipedia things early on and starting to substantiate the case for microcredentials in the Talk page of microdegree
Hi Simone. I'm happy tohave a look at the draft when you feel it's ready if that helps. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021Edit

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello John B123,

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. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunate to see you go from NPPEdit

Hi John. I saw your comment in the NPP section.

Its really unfortunate the admins didn't give you or the others the support needed.

Its even more unfortunate that you are no longer doing reviews.

So I speak on behalf of many who would like to express our gratitude to you and your hard work in helping perform all those reviews.

-Imcdc (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Imcdc: Can you plese tell me what happened. John B123 was one of the top most reviewer. --Gazal world (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
See link -Imcdc (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Imcdc, thanks for those kind words. All the best for the future. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Disambiguation link notification for September 18Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Suzuki T series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Suzuki TC250.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]


Hi,sir.Could you please review Imarat tayfa.

Hi Imarat tayfa. Sorry, I'm no longer reviewing new article so can't help. Reply. --John B123 (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Oh,OK...So who can I ask to do this? If you know of an active page reviewer, could you please direct me?

Hi Imarat tayfa. There are many reviewers looking at new articles so I'm sure one of them will have a look at it. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]


I note you did this which in my opinion is very much apt. The tag was removed here. I moved it to Draftspace due to notability concerns and possible COI here. It seems to have made its way back to mainspace, I’m not sure what to make of this, can you take a second look at the article and check to see if the notability threshold is met? I’d appreciate your thoughts and take on this. Celestina007 (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Celestina007, I don't see that it meets the notability guidelines any more than when I tagged it previously. As it has been draftified once and then moved back to mainspace you can't send it to draft again, so AfD would seem the only option. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Exactly I wasn’t planning on draftyfing, I cross checked the article & I didn’t see it to be notable enough, since the {{notability}} tag up until now, thus I decided ask for a second opinion from you, yes, AFD seems to be the only plausible course of action now. Thanks John. Celestina007 (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

What’s your formula?Edit

I’m looking to adapt new formulas when reviewing articles so I’m going about asking veteran reviewers their approach. My question is, I note that when you come across non notable article on mainspace you tend to leave the “notability” tag on the article, now, when you do so, do you mark as “reviewed” or do you manually “un-review” it? Celestina007 (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Celestina007. There are two different views on how reviewing should be carried out. The first is that when you look at an article, you tag it as neccasary and mark it as reviewed as you have reviewed it. The second is that you should only mark articles as reviewed if they are suitable to remain in mainspace as they are (although they may still have more minor issues). I subscribe to the latter.
When I was reviewing the first thing I looked at was notability. If it was obviously not notable, I'd nominate for speedy or AfD. If I wasn't sure I'd add a notability tag but not mark it as reviewed. 'Not sure' would also include where there is no notability shown on the page. For example for a film article, if there were no reviews on the page (to satisfy WP:NFILM) I'd tag it. There may well be reviews for the film, but I don't see that it is part of the NPP remit to search for them. (Unlike sending them to AfD where you need to do a WP:BEFORE search). Leaving it in the queue allows other reviewers to look at it, effectively getting a second opinion. If you mark it as reviewed then the chances are no other reviewers will see it.
The next thing I'd look at is references. If there were no references I'd tag it as such but not mark it as reviewed. Every couple of days I'd go through the unreferenced articles in the feed and if they had been previously tagged as such move them to draft. When there were a list of general references, I'd tag the article with {{no footnotes}} but not mark it as reviewed (WP:VERIFY requires inline citations). If there were some inline references but required more I'd tag it with {{refimprove}} or {{BLP sources}}. If a lot of the content was referenced then I'd mark it as reviewed as well as tagging, but if it was largely unreferenced then I'd leave it as unreviewed. One test you could apply here is if you removed all the unreferenced content, would the article pass the basic requirements to stay in mainspace.
Generally if I came across an article that somebody else had reviewed that I though needed tags, I add add the tags but not unreview it.
Hope this helps. Although I'm no longer actively involved in NPP, I'm happy to offer any advice I can if you need it. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks JB, it definitely did help. Celestina007 (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

can you fix some cite and grammar errors in 2021 Brazilian protests?Edit

ok, so, i added new content to the page, but it has lots of cite errors and possibly some grammar errors, so, can you fix them for me, as im not good with that. (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi. I've fixed the cite errors but grammar isn't one of my strong points so I can't help you there. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

'Please comply with WP:BRD'Edit

You may consider an edit summary stating 'Please comply with WP:BRD' [1] entirely unaccompanied by any attempt to address what I would hope are obvious concerns over the sourcing of an article to be appropriate. I don't. Accordingly, I suggest you follow your own advice, and discuss the material, rather than blindly restoring it. Free free to do so either on the talk page, or at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Flirty_Fishing_references. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@AndyTheGrump: You are missing the point. The basic concept WP:BRD is that when an edit is reverted then it should be discussed not simply changed back to how you think it should be as you did. It is not a case of change it to how you think it should be and then discuss it, but gain consensus before restoring how you think it should be. Restoring to content to before the disputed changes is entirely appropriate, your edit warring is not. --John B123 (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
No, I am not missing any point whatsoever. There is nothing in WP:BRD that states that policy-violating material cannot be removed from an article because people cite 'WP:BRD' while refusing to engage in any discussion. I suggest you either do so, or revert your own edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@AndyTheGrump: If you're not missing the point then why start edit warring? I haven't refused to do anything by the way. --John B123 (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I haven't 'started edit warring'. I have made a single edit, removing what seems self-evidently inappropriately-sourced material from an article, and at the same time requested that other people discuss the matter. Pleas comply with WP:BRD, and explain (either on the talk page, or at WP:RSN) why you think the citation of xfamily.org is justifiiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Whatever. Although it 'seems' to be inappropriate to you, this view is not shared by others as witnessed by the page's recent history. I have simply restored the original content until the discussion about it is complete, which is accepted practice. I don't see what the problem with that is? --John B123 (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The problem is that you have restored material that violates WP:RS sourcing policy in multiple ways, while failing to explain why you are doing so in an appropriate place. There will be no 'discussion' unless those supporting the inclusion are prepared to explain why they think it is justified. WP:BRD is not a stonewalling licence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If those supporting the inclusion do not join in the discussion then it will be a short discussion and the consensus will be to remove the content. At that point the content should be removed. Until consensus is agreed, the principle is that the disputed content remains. I don't see why you are getting so aggressive with me for simply trying to ensure the correct procedures are followed. --John B123 (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If your only reason for reverting my edit was to 'ensure the correct procedures are followed', it was done in direct contradiction to what WP:BRD actually says: "BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle". There is a 'D' in 'BRD' for a reason, and people citing it are expected to comply, by discussing the disputed matter in an appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You can cherry pick excerpts from WP:BRD all you want, but that doesn't change the base principle that contentious material should remain if the changes have been challenged, which they have in this case, until consensus is obtained. --John B123 (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
How exactly is consensus supposed to be obtained if people refuse to engage in discussion? You have made an edit. You have cited WP:BRD to do so. Now discuss the matter in one of the places available, explaining why you think the citations are valid. Or if you aren't prepared to do that, self-revert, and leave the matter for people who actually understand what WP:BRD is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Let me put this simply. An IP removed the references[2] which was reverted by Thorwald[3]. At this point Bold and Revert of WP:BRD had happened, therefore Discuss was called for, and your further revert[4] was totally inappropriate, hence my restoration of the stable version. Because you have strong views on the subject is no reason to have the page as you think it should be whilst the matter is discussed. People do have lives outside Wikipedia, to get upset that people have not responded within hours to a discussion you started is unreasonable. --John B123 (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
What is 'unreasonable' is citing WP:BRD in an edit summary, and then refusing to provide any justification whatsoever for restoring material so clearly inappropriately cited. You are responsible for your own edits, you chose to make them. Why aren't you prepared to discuss your own edits? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Further to this, as I noted in my edit summary [5], there may well be a copyright issue involved here. As I would hope should be obvious, it is never appropriate to restore material in breach of Wikipedia copyright policy, and failing to even discuss this while restoring the disputed content is inadvisable, to say the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
(edit conflict) I thought this whole section was discussing it. Once again, I haven't refused anything, but I am now refusing to be bullied by you into anything. The discussion about the refs is now taking place. At some stage it will conclude the refs should be removed, or that the refs are appropriate so should remain. Either way the issue will be resolved. --John B123 (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If there are copyvios then follow the appropriate procedure, but don't try to use it as a justification to push through the changes you want to make. --John B123 (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The issue isn't 'copyvios'. It is what appears to be a clear violation of Wikipedia:Copyrights ("a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations"). Specifically, the article is repeatedly citing Children of God/Family International primary-source material uploaded to the xfamily.org website, under circumstances where it would be entirely reasonable to assume that the website could be in breach of the original creator's copyright. WP:LINKVIO is unambiguous on this: "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work... Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States... Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." As for changes I want, I haven't formed any opinion of consequence on this yet, since I prefer to base such opinions on what legitimate independent sources have to say on a subject. I only got involved as a result of seeing the IP's comments at WP:RSN, and on checking agreed with their conclusions. 13:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Please kindly put me through, I need more knowledgeEdit

Hello, I have created a article but it has an issue on it. Can you kindly help me understand it well so that I can correct my mistake? Here's the article Benjamin Sokomba Dazhi. Also it has not been reviewed yet. Kind regards sir and do have a lovely day. Moshswacide (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Moshswacide, I've removed the {{lead missing}} tag which shouldn't have been added in the first place. I'm no longer involved in new page reviewing so can't help you there. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you very much for the help, I really appreciate. However, can you kindly assist me by recommending any new page reviewer? Sorry for the inconveniences. Regards. Moshswacide (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Moshswacide, there are numerous reviewers, I'm sure one of them will look at the article soon. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Chaumont Volley-Ball 52Edit

Good evening, could you withdraw the "Draft" [6] of the Chaumont Volley-Ball 52, in order to link them to the 18 other pages (interlanguage), please. There are a lot of sources now.

Hi Durante Inferno, it's looking a lot better now but still needs references in the History section. I've tidied up the lead section and will have a look at tidying up the rest of it tomorrow when I have more time. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hello John B123, I made the last modifications requested, thus adding more sources and references to complete the article. From my side everything is ok. Regards. --Durante Inferno (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Durante Inferno, all done. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]


John, Sir, Hi! How are you doing? Greetings. I've missed your reviews. Please have a look on these pages Cross section (fiber), and Malimo. Guide me how can i review them myself or there is no need. Thanks and regards RV (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi RV, nice to hear from you. I'm good thanks, hope you are too. I see you have autopatrolled rights now so the articles you create are automatically marked as reviewed, there's nothing else that needs to be done. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Many thanks. Will continue to disturb you.   Regards RV (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Please Help ME!Edit

@John B123: I Had Request The Right Of IP Block Exmeption From LongHair Just Few Hours Ago They Have Given Me This Right For 1 Month Asked To Reviwew After 1 Month But I Still Dont Understand Which One He Will Review What Happened Will They Block Me Please Help me ,Please see my talkpage.Best Regards. Maniik 🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me. 14:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Manikk. IP blocks are made after troublesome editing from that IP. Unfortunately, IPs are not static so some genuine editors get blocked because of their IPs. (It happened to me recently - see above). Provided your edits are constructive over the next month I don't see why the IP block exemption should be made permanent. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@John B123: I think I have not made any wrong edits to Wikipedia so far yes there may be some problem in my contribution please see if you want my contribution and then tell me I have asked for IP Block Exemption only because I do not want to make any other mistake I get punishment, I have seen your unblock request, please ask for IP Block Exemption like me, I use public networks like mobile broadband, coffee shops, airports and wifi to edit on Wikipedia. But will they really block me?Best Regards. Maniik 🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me. 01:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

WARNINGs and CivilityEdit

Please, refrain from hastily putting "warnings" on people's talk pages like you did today on my page at [09:08, October 11, 2021] without due necessity; especially for minor reasons; this may amount to false accusations i.e. violation of WP:CIVIL#ACCUSATIONS/WP:IUC; assume good WP:FAITH first; all the best (you are safe to revert this). AXONOV (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Alexander Davronov: When a user disregards WP:BRD then a warning on their talk page is entirely appropriate. --John B123 (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I sent you thanks for suggested page improvementsEdit

A belated and quick message to thank you for your review of a page I did during a summer editathon. I'm grateful for the work of committed Wikipedian volunteers! I'm very behind with messages like these. Dawnbazely (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Dawnbazely, thanks for your kind words. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]


This revert is out of line. If you have objections to the edit, you must state them clearly in the edit summary and not just use the default message from rollback, as that is abuse of the tool: "editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I also left a comment on the talk page 10 minutes ago, to which you haven't replied. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@RandomCanadian: I have left the reasons for reverting you changes on the talk page. --John B123 (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It would be good if you could actually address the arguments I make instead of simply saying "give more time". At least, thanks for explaining yourself, but in the future, the explanation needs to be directly with the edit (especially if you are using rollback: there are plenty of tools which allow you to put in a custom summary) and should not require someone prompting you to give one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I do normally give an exit summary, but am using a new tablet and for some reason I didn't get a preview (where you add an edit summary) when pressing 'undo' it simply posted the changes. Once this happened I posted the explanation on the talk page, presumably at the same time as you were posting here, so there was no question of being prompted. --John B123 (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

November 2021 backlog driveEdit

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
  • On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]