User talk:KSFT/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, KSFT, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

June 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Fetya (Nasyid) has been reverted.
Your edit here to Fetya (Nasyid) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://m.facebook.com/FetyaOfficial/about?expand_all=1, https://m.facebook.com/FetyaOfficial/about?expand_all=1) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Fetya (Nasyid)

Hi! I noticed a bot was giving you trouble with that DB tag. No idea why. If there's proof of copy-vio related stuff at that URL it's definitely allowed. One tip though, try combining multiple CSD tags into a single {{Db-multiple}} tag like this: {{Db-multiple|G11|A7}}. Keeps things a bit more manageable. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I was wondering if there was a better way to do that. I hope I'm signing my post correctly. KSFT (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		Well done in your contributions! Don't be afraid to ask for help and don't be afraid of making mistakes -- we all do. --Non-Dropframe talk 02:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Hello KSFT. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), or content (CSD A3), moments after they are created, as you did at The Art of Robert Fisher. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I guess I missed that part of the description. I undid my edit to that page. KSFT (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Carlos Llavador

Hi, you've just tagged Carlos Llavador as an orphan, but there are two articles linking to it: Men's foil at the 2013 World Fencing Championships and 2015 European Fencing Championships, so I'm a bit puzzled as to the message. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the wording of the template could be improved, but I was following Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Collaborate_with_article_creators, which says this:

If the article has less than three incoming links (from actual articles, excluding pages in other namespaces like User talk, Talk, Wikipedia, etc.) add { {Orphan} } to the top of the page.

KSFT ^talk 18:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I don't see any way to add more links at the moment, but thanks for the explanation. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Gybowman

Hi, I am in an edit-a-thon for Gay and Lesbian materials. I am entering the comic artists for Gay Comix, in the hope that people would add information as it is discovered. I also wanted to add something to the stubs for these artists, as opposed to having a blank stub which might be later conflated with other people with the same name.

Are they notable? It depends on your interest in the gay history.

Is that a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gybowman (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Re:Copyright violations

Thank you for your concern. Another Wikipedia user warned me of this issue here. It turns out that these websites are taking these plot summaries from Wikipedia articles and claiming them as their own. I am getting these plot summaries from the show's respective season pages. Wikipedia user Crow told me it was okay to put these plot summaries in each article as long as I put "Article created with content copied from The Blacklist (season 1), see that page for attribution" whenever I create an article that copies the plot from the respective season. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 21:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Alright, Crow explained it to me three minutes ago on your talk page. KSFT ^talk 21:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Correct. The applicable guidelines, if you're interested is WP:CWW. Thanks for your vigilance! Crow^Caw 21:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Algemeen Christelijk Vakverbond (logo).svg

Thanks for uploading File:Algemeen Christelijk Vakverbond (logo).svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm new

Dear KSFT,

The reason that I tried to remove the page Zhang Nanju is because I am new to wikipedia and I'm not sure what I'm doing. I wasn't sure if the page was necessary and if it needed to be on wikipedia. It seems as though you need to know code to contribute to wikipedia, and I do not know code. I would like to contribute but don't know how. Odudley954 (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Odudley954

That's fine; I understand. I'm actually pretty new, too. I just noticed that you were actually the one who created that article, which means that the notice I left on your talk page was actually completely irrelevant (whoops). (I also now realize that I forgot to sign my post on your talk page.) I am curious about why you would create an article then try to delete it immediately, though. I don't see anything wrong with it being on Wikipedia. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "know code", but there are some helpful links for getting started here on my talk page. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the teahouse (WP:Q has more details), or I could help you if you post here again. KSFT ^talk 02:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

KSFT, What I meant by "code" is all the referencing and the sourcing. I am not very good at that, and I'm not sure what the requirements are and if I am doing them correctly. That is my problem. I would like to contribute, but I don't know if I'm doing it right. Odudley954 (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Odudley954

Odudley954, you might want to check out Referencing for beginners, and see f that helps. If not the teahouse or the Help desk are good places to ask questions. DES ^(talk) 19:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Tagging of FILTHY ROCKWELL

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on FILTHY ROCKWELL. I do not think that FILTHY ROCKWELL fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because "grammy nominated writer" is a claim of significence. I request that you consider not re-tagging FILTHY ROCKWELL for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk) 19:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man

Hi. Thanks for this. I don't think I've ever been told, effectively, to "go fuck myself" before. Frankly I'm tempted to take it to WP:ANI as his behaviour seem too far beyond the pale for words. However, in looking at the edits that I made I can accept that employing the common phrase of "fucking up" (much a part of my native argot, more than anything) was ill-advised. What's your take? Pyrope 21:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Pyrope: @The Rambling Man: Let's continue this discussion here. I really just saw lots of reverts and swearing before posting on TRM's talk page. I'll read over the edits and let you know what I think. I just read through those edits, and I don't know much about citations, but it looks like TRM violated WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF, while Pyrope was being un-WP:CIVIL after being provoked, though Pyrope did continue posting on TRM's talk page after being specifically (though rudely) asked to stop. KSFT ^talk 21:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again KSFT, I'd appreciate a third party take a look at this before escalating to formal proceedings. I see in his response to you on his talk page that he considers my description of his behaviour and actions as a personal attack on him, which he then uses to justify his own sneering, non-AGF and actually attacking edit summaries. Ho hum. Pyrope 21:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, who used "fucking" first? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Its a word, in common usage, and it was used as part of a common phrase to describe your actions and not you personally. Perhaps, as I said, ill-advised, but as KSFT mentions, following provocation. Your edit summary "try some compliance with mos, consistency of formatting, and all that, or do you think you own this article?" was frankly more funny than alarming, particularly as your edits actually made things on that article worse, not better, with respect to citation formatting guides within the MoS (hence my reversion summary "more harm than good"). I come across people like you quite a lot here, and I have to admit that I do love to prick the pompous, especially when their pomposity is entirely misplaced and unjustified. People who think that they are unimpeachable yet are making just as many mistakes and poor edits as the rest of us schlubs muddling through. People who use auto-generated boilerplate edit summaries that obscure their actions to other editors and call upon the might MoS (*sounds of harps and heavenly chorus*) when trying to get their way, but are actually editing in contravention of the MoS. People who think nothing of launching direct, obscene personal attacks when they think that they might have suffered some lack of due deference from the proles. Pyrope 21:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's always a shame when two very experienced editors get pissed at each other; for relatively new editors, it's like getting Between Scylla and Charybdis. They'll iron it out themselves, or it will peter out, or it will be taken to a noticeboard somewhere with much gnashing of teeth and little result. But there was no real benefit to you issuing a warning (particularly to only one of them). In this particular case, TRM (or any editor) can remove stuff from his talk page whenever he wants; P should not have been reverting that removal, and there was no 3RR violation (you seem to misunderstand that policy). And the term "fucking up" was first used by P, and TRM was evidently throwing it back at him in edit summaries (i.e. take your "fucking" elsewhere); it is not the same as saying "go fuck yourself" (OK, I see, it was). These kinds of things wouldn't happen if people followed the Platinum Rule, but around here everyone is incrementally ruder to the person they think was wrong/rude, but is always shocked when the other person is then incrementally more rude in return, and it always spirals out of control. Eggshells armed with hammers. But it is often made worse by well meaning people sticking their noses in (like I'm doing now!). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam: Am I misunderstanding WP:3RR? It specifically says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page...A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk...space". Nevermind, exception 2 covers userspace. I have edited my original comment.
    • See what I mean, KSFT? It's an irregular verb: "I was prick[ing] the pompous, you were violating WP:CIVIL, he/she was making a vicious personal attack. Better to just walk away, shaking your head. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
      • What? Is that relevant? KSFT ^talk 22:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

;-) Pyrope 22:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

More notes on your request

Hello KSFT. I think that others have already pointed these out on your talk. You thought there was a possible WP:3RR situation at an editor's talk page, but WP:3RRNO point #2 gives the owner of a talk page freedom to undo any posts without that counting against 3RR. There's also an A7 speedy deletion tag that could easily have been avoided with a bit of Googling and an issue with tagging new pages too soon after creation. But, please continue and just try not to make too many waves until you have more experience. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Heart Island

Hey, were you the one who put the tag for references on there? I do not think that is needed for 2 sentences. ThatKongregateGuy (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@ThatKongregateGuy: Yeah, I did tag Heart Island as unreferenced, as it did not have any references. It still doesn't have any, so I'm not sure why you removed it. Are you claiming that WP:V doesn't apply to stubs? KSFT^C 18:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

New page patrol

If you tag a new page for cleanup or deletion, be sure to mark it as reviewed as well. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 19:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: Unless I'm not sure about something and want another editor to also look at a new article, I have been marking pages I review as patrolled. KSFT^C 19:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much...

...for your words of support over at my RfA. I shall strive to be worthy of the honor. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

EDC Paris Business School

Hello KSFT, how are you ? Thank you for your Work on Wikipedia. So, yes I not explain why because it's not finish but as you seen all the information that i have add in EDC Paris Business School are true with all the references. Is it possible to restore all the work ? I try to complete this page with all the informations that EDC Paris Business school give me to complete this page so I think that you made a mistake because you can verify the informations which is important for the presentation of the school. It doesn't matter but can can you restore the work please ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FLYSERIZZ (talk • contribs) 23:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

History of Iceland

The section I removed is unsourced and sounds like it was written by a 14 year old. I removed it because it fell well below the tenor of the rest of the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C06A:730:2422:77DD:91AE:BFB7 (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@2602:30A:C06A:730:2422:77DD:91AE:BFB7: I didn't look carefully at what you removed (although now I know I should in the future), but do make sure to include an edit summary next time, so you can explain what you're doing and why. I'll remove it again if it hasn't been already. KSFT^C 00:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (film_series)#Reception

Hi. I removed some text in the Zeitgeist (film series) article. I thought I put the edit summary in correctly. "Tightened up sentence in Irish Review, Constant review already quoted in own paragraph, NY Times article is on Zday and doesn't contain that criticism". I'm not sure how it triggered the software, but it is a good faith edit. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@70.36.233.104: Ah, I see; you're totally right. I apologize. KSFT^C 15:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem. It is cool that it can catch stuff that fast though. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome from WP:STiki!

Hello, KSFT, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! Thanks for downloading and trying out the STiki tool. Unfortunately, your first use came at a time when STiki was experiencing some technical difficulties, so your test-drive probably wasn't as positive as the STiki community would have liked. Because of edit ingestion problems you probably experienced an usually low "hit rate" (the percentage of edits a user sees that they revert). Typically these numbers hover in the 20-33% range, so I encourage you to come back and give us another try. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Free Agency

Isn't DeAndre Jordan a Free Agent? It says that on the Clippers Roster?

UVABallers (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@UVABallers: I have no idea whether that's true or not, but in Wikipedia articled, content must be verifiable, which means it must be cited to a reliable source. If there is one for that fact, then absolutely cite it and undo my edit. KSFT^C 18:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)r

Baku (spirit)

Why did you send me that warning?My edits at "Baku" are referenced.And don't say it is an unreliable reference.You even called them "vandalism". Rolandi+ (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And this???Do you call this reliable? Here: Rolandi+ (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

TejGavate

Thank you for your help. I have made a few changes to the info. Please check it and if possible try to point out the mistakes. Tejgavate (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

A7 educational institutions (The University of Akron: School of Music)

Hey there,

I removed your A7 CSD criteria from The University of Akron: School of Music because there is a universal exception to CSD A7 for educational institutions - all educational institutions are notable. :)

| Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 18:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Naypta: Huh...I've read that so many times, but I guess I just somehow completely missed that. KSFT^C 19:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Haha, it happens to everyone =P Have a great wikiday! | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 19:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Third Eye Solutions

Hi KSFT,

Thanks for all that you do as a wikipedia editor. I wanted to message you to talk about the entry I created for "Third Eye Solutions." You'd flagged the entry as being unambiguously promotional and I was hoping to get a little more clarity as to why this was the case. The page merely stated a few facts about the company, and went out of its way to provide encyclopedic content on related topics to provide a larger depth of information. I modeled the portion that discusses the company by looking at the EZLynx wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EZLynx

If you could help me understand why the EZlynx wiki page meets the wikipedia criteria, but the Third Eye Solutions page did not, it would be greatly appreciated.

In fact, if you could offer any tips on further revisions to help meet the wikipedia critera, it would be an immense help.

Kind Regards,

Hershal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hershal P (talk • contribs) 15:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Hershal P: The article has been deleted, so I can't look at it to see what the problem was specifically, but the other article you linked to does look partly promotional, so I have tagged it for cleanup. The criteria for speedy deletion of promotional articles are here. KSFT^C 23:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Edited page of Alchemy

Respected sir.. I think dose nt knw more history of alchemy cause till 2012 the ancient name alchemy given by Arabic wrd but you or other else edited it " the arab borrow the name alchemy" how a discstng dear.. You all of knw our elder did a trmnds wrk for all of science... But now a days the history... Oh not only histry.. The realities hidden.. I m really sry if any word or anythng hurts u but its my duty to aware u from realities.. Just one time think abt it thn reply.. Take care Ziyahashmi (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Johann Gottfried Pratsch

Hello KSFT. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Johann Gottfried Pratsch, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Someone who died in the 17th century probably merits an AFD, has an article in de.wp and a VIAF authority control file. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

zonuz

you have mentioned a lot of wrong and mistake points about zonuz as seen on web address :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zonuz if you are not familiar with this city please do not furnish Wrong information . in Demographics part all is wrong and in other parts some points are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.163.225 (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Thank you for your amendments but origins of zonouzian people are Azerbaijanian Turkish not mixed with other nationality. as a Ref. please take a look to national Geographic society languages map . Washington DC august 1999. there are a lot of facts that indicated information provided by you and published in above web address are wrong. Thank you for your attention and please do amendment and or let me do my self. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.176.166.233 (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 10:08:42, 1 September 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Bigi111

• Bigi111 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Nicolas Gisin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

You decline the article concerning Nicolas Gisin, submitted the 30 of August 2015. It's really a big surprise !!!

There are 36 references, You can search Nicolas Gisin or just Gisin on the Web to see that he is very well known in quantum physics and most of the references proves it. He is director of the Group of Applied Physics at the university of Geneva, and link to the Group Web page is given. Just for information, I'm Nicolas's brother (Bernard Gisin) and he review the article I submitted. There are so many references when you search : "Nicolas Gisin", https://www.google.ch/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Nicolas+Gisin

So the question is : what other reference do you want ?

Bigi111 (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The references all seem to be things he wrote himself, which means they aren't independent. There are several parts of the lead and first section that aren't cited. Also, submissions should be written with a neutral point of view, which some of your submission doesn't seem to be, as I noted in the comment I left. Finally, if you're his brother, you may have a conflict of interest, and you should probably let someone else create that article. KSFT^C 17:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

09:41:01, 31 August 2015 review of submission by Pentz.peter

• Pentz.peter (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Greeks of the Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi KSFT,

Thank you for reviewing our submission of Greeks of the Sea Documentary Series.

This Series has been shown on one of the major Television Networks in Australia which is listed in the external links. There was a lot of press coverage for the series. I just don't know how to improve this from here? The content was researched and written by ourselves so perhaps it is the difference between Referencing and External Links which I do not get. So disappointed. What can I do to get this approved. Seen so many other TV documentaries being "out there" with a lot less references and external links.

Please could you help.

Thank you.

Peter

Pentz.peter (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pentz.peter:To show that something's notable, the links to sources that support it are supposed to be listed as references. I checked those, and they didn't establish notability. I should have looked more carefully at the external links too, though. They absolutely do establish notability. That was my fault. Re-submit the draft, and I'll accept it. KSFT^C 14:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear KSFT, Many thanks for your prompt reply and for reviewing and accepting my concerns. I have resubmitted the article. Kind regards and thanks once again! Peter Pentz.peter (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear KFST,

The article is waiting for your acceptance. I know you must be very busy, but if you could please accept this it would be greatly greatly appreciated.

Many thanks for all your assistance with this.

Kind regards

Peter Pentz.peter (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

LLoyd Pye Article

Hello,

I am writing this in regard to an automatic edit about Lloyd Pye's article. Here goes:

"although DNA testing showed it to be from a human male"

I removed this because this report was flawed, and there are more recent reports:

2003 Trace genetics: mtDNA was recovered and identified as human, but nuDNA was not recovered. (Unlike BOLD, Trace genetics was was qualified for handling ancient DNA, and the BOLD lab was employing students, as opposed to qualified geneticists, and twice the students accidentally contaminated the bone samples.)

2010: 454 life sciences, geneticist unnamed: several nuDNA fragments, totaling up to 3,000 base pairs were recovered, slightly less than half was identified as human, while the other half remained unidentified (later, the unidentified sequences were found to have some similarities to sequences from bacterial genomes; not all were perfectly matched.

2011: 454 life sciences, same geneticist, unnamed: 4 mtDNA fragments were recovered (9.5% of all of the mtDNA), and found to have have 93 base pair variations. Pye extrapolated this total out to a statistically acceptable (not 100% correct) estimate of 800-1,000 variations, whereas humans only have 120 variations in mtDNA; this is because it is highly conserved, and only 3-5% is not vital for proper functioning of the mitochondria.

"although DNA testing showed it to be from a human male"

this report was written in 1999 by BOLD. they only recovered a fragment of DNA (which they said was human; a lot of people were handling the skull, and there were fingerprints, possibly sweat and skin cells deposited). also, lots of other organisms have human DNA, therefore the starchild could have been a monkey or ape (following the logic of the BOLD lab report).

I'm not trying to be offensive, repugnant, or malicious, but the old article is missing some relevant information.

ErednebE — Preceding unsigned comment added by EBenderednebE (talk • contribs) 22:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@EBenderednebE: Do you have a reference? Wikipedia requires that content be verifiable, which means that you need a reliable source for that information. If you have one, then you should add that information again and cite the source.

The starchild project. It is reliable, and they have taken the starchild skull very seriously; I know of no source more reliable about the starchild skull, no source more serious about it either. I am positive about this. I would not have mentioned the starchild project if I thought they were unreliable.EBenderednebE (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)ErednebE

By the way, you should sign you posts with four tiles:

~~~~

That will automatically produce your signature with a timestamp. KSFT^C 22:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Sex Messenger

Hello, I am following the same estructure of the other sites listed. Why do you think it does not contribute? Cam50 camgirl (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

In your wikidictionary do you have the etmology of vandalism? Amakasaid (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Noting errrors

Not trying intrude both I don't really like wiki wiki ish.but errors on Wikipedia affect the account accountability of my projects, so most times am just there minding my business scrolls and through wikis and I see lots and lots of murderous error wiki staff indeed more like hackers to be continued....ranting Amakasaid (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Christian terrorism

dear,why u have deleted my edits in that article????

PALESTINE IS COMMITTING WAR CRIMES AGAINST ISRAELIS

PALESTINE IS BACKED BY TERRORIST RUSSIA

IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF ISRAEL FOR EVERYTHING THAT GOES ON IN THE MIDDLE EAST

ISRAEL IS DEMOCRATIC

STOP THE PROPAGANDA

ISRAEL BRINGS PEACE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mervin Jonesey (talk • contribs) 06:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ophiuchus holds apart the serpent which with its mighty spirals and twisted body encircles his own, so that he may untie its knots and back that winds in loops. But, bending its supple neck, the serpent looks back and returns: and the other's hands slide

I am therefore I think I am. Therefore I am. I am 13th I am x X=1 Sorry everyone....it's time.

Ophiuchus holds apart the serpent which with its mighty spirals and twisted body encircles his own, so that he may untie its knots and back that winds in loops. But, bending its supple neck, the serpent looks back and returns: and the other's hands slide over the loosened coils. The struggle will last forever, since they wage it on level terms with equal powers  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.137.225 (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC) 

False report on an edit.

''''''I believe that you FaZe Clan'd me by 720 insta-swapping me like who are you kid? FaZe Adapt? You must think you're good but im better kid 1v1 Rust qs bro u aren't good bro fite me. ''''''--Pxri (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)————————≈≈≠≠≥±±÷÷

              -Lizard Squad </3

Thank you for participating

Thank you for your interest in Women in Red and for your participation in the virtual Women in Leadership Edit-a-thon, 7-20 September 2015. It was a resounding success with over 160 new articles. Your contributions are appreciated! We'll keep you posted on future events. --Ipigott (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ipigott: What? I have no idea what that is. KSFT^C 20:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi there KSFT. Sorry it's taken me so long to reply to you on this. It looked as if you had created the article Amina Bala-Zakari on 12 September but on rechecking I see you just moved it into the main space. As she was a leader, I assumed the article had been created as part of the editathon. Now I realize it was just a coincidence.--Ipigott (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops.

I am sorry. I did not know that I was offending anyone. I do not know exactly what less than neutral means. But I am pretty sure that they won the record. I could be wrong. But again, sorry. Mrs. Weasley12 (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Mrs. Weasley12:: It was mostly the phrase "sky rocketed into popularity" that seemed unnecessarily advertisement-like. The sentence you added about a Guiness world record needs a source too. KSFT^C 23:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

oh. Thank you. Now I know what I need to correct. Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs. Weasley12 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Rihanna - Anti

You reverted my change to Rihanna - Anti. I was not signed in and had the IP 70.88.236.93. The line I changed was:

'Jason Lipshutz of Billboard noted that the lyrical content of the song sounded inspired by Beyoncé's 2014 single "Flawless" '

That line is a complete misrepresentation of what the article says about the song and is frankly downright confusing as the song's lyrical content draws no inspiration whatsoever from the song 'Flawless'. It is rather the attitude of 'Flawless' that the song's lyrics draw inspiration from. That is what I intended to correct with my change. Does that make sense? Vaxine19 (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Vaxine19:: Yeah, I misread your edit. I have now redone it. KSFT^C 23:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks KSFT! Vaxine19 (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea what I am doing.  :). I thought this would be easier than it is. On the Wikipedia Page for the Tennessee Brewery it references Goldcrest Beer and appears to want a link to a Goldcrest Beer page. Since I am knowledgeable about that subject, I simply wanted to add some info. I'm not an editor or programmer. I see that there are lots of tutorials and suggestions-but I'll have to revisit these as I don't have time to learn it all right now. Any suggestions are appreciated. Haybar (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Haybar

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Lieb-Robinson bounds

added links pointing to Relativistic and Finite

XIII (comics)

added a link pointing to Irish

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nonito Donaire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punch. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Spring break.

Hi. Regarding your revert here; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spring_break&diff=692963453&oldid=692955462

Perhaps you could read the previous edit's summary; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spring_break&diff=prev&oldid=692955462

and then amend your comment on the user's talk page?

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Referenced the Page 'Nick Paul'

I just added a reference to the page Nick Paul. Is this alright? Is it still at risk to be deleted?

Thanks!

SensFan8 (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@SensFan8: That's good! It's fine that you removed the template now that there's a reliable source. KSFT^C 08:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Van tassel apartments

A tag has been placed on Van tassel apartments requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Stefan2: I didn't create or significantly edit that article, other than CSD templates, so I'm not sure why Twinkle notified me of this. KSFT^C 16:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

You created the page (redirect) when you moved the page. When a redirect is tagged for deletion, the notification goes to the first person to edit the redirect. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it was the redirect that was tagged for deletion. That explains it. KSFT^C 17:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Please Stop Deleting CTS Faculty

Stop requesting my articles be deleted. I have proof of authorship and permission from the original authors for use their biographies. Whether they use them elsewhere is their concern, but I guarantee I have their permission and authority to use them. You are deleting them under false pretenses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.Shilts (talk • contribs) 22:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathan.Shilts: The message I left on your talk page explains the deletion tag. I tagged them because they violate copyright. If you own the copyright and want to donate the text, or if you have permission from the owner, follow the instructions I left on your talk page. Remember to sign talk pages messages with four tildes (~~~~). KSFT^C 22:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Kanye West Wiki

Hello,

In response to your question about why I edited the Kanye West Wiki page, the first sentence is 100% subjective and Wikipedia is about factual information. The noted citation does not support the statement. One would have to do an inventory of every single review of every single musical artist who released a record in the 2000's, cull that information to determine who are the most acclaimed artists of the 21st century. Again, way too subjective and needs to be amended.

Kanye Omari West (/ˈkɑːnjeɪ/; born June 8, 1977) is an American hip hop recording artist, record producer, rapper, fashion designer, and entrepreneur. He is among the most acclaimed musicians of the 21st century,[1] attracting both praise and controversy for his work and his outspoken public persona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisas (talk • contribs) 23:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Section heading for User:CathyDiezLuckie's message

Hi, I wanted to ask if this article would be an appropriate source for Figures In Motion. The editor of History News Network asked me to write this article about our first book, Famous Figures of Ancient Times. Here is the link: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/121497 Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CathyDiezLuckie (talk • contribs) 04:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@CathyDiezLuckie: It's your book? If you work for that publisher, you have a conflict of interest, and you should probably let someone else write the article. Sources should be reliable and independent. If they satisfy both of those policies, they're probably good, but, again, if you have a conflict of interest, you shouldn't be writing that article. KSFT^C 04:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sandy Hook

Thank you for agreeing to open this case. Since you appear to be new as a DRN volunteer, here is some advice. Tell the participants to be civil and concise, and to comment on content, not on contributors. Be ready to hat any uncivil comments. Also, re-read Wikipedia is not censored, since it appears that one of the editors misunderstands that policy, and thinks that it applies to the removal of content as inappropriate. As that policy states, a decision can be made to remove an image because it is not appropriate, just not because it is offensive. A moderator needs to apply Wikipedia policy soundly, not based on the arguments of one editor. Thank youj. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:Thank you; I am new. My job is to moderate the discussion and make sure everyone's being helpful and civil, not to have an opinion myself, right?

Based on what I've read about this case, it looks like multiple editors misunderstood WP:NOTCENSORED; it looks like someone cited that an image could be offensive as a reason to remove it. KSFT^C 20:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. You are not supposed to have an opinion on the content issue, but to ensure that the parties are civil and cooperative. Sometimes the moderator may suggest a compromise, but cannot enforce it. In this case, it isn't obvious whether there is a compromise. You do have a right and a duty to speak out in favor of compliance with Wikipedia policy, including that WP:NOTCENSORED is correctly understood. Offensiveness is not a reason to remove an image, but inappropriateness is. Since the discussion appears to be about whether the image is appropriate to the article, arguments about censorship are off the mark. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Am I allowed to respond to

other editors' comments at the Sandy Hook/gun image case at WP:DRN? I've never actually participated there before and am not sure about the guidelines. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Hey, I haven't either! I'm a new volunteer, and this is my first case. I think you can respond in the discussion section; I assume it's for discussion. KSFT^C 01:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I responded and am done. Good luck. Shearonink (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The threaded back-and-forth discussion at this point is not progressing. Please intervene. I suggest asking the parties, first, to respond to you and not to each other, and, second, to explain why the image of the type of gun is or is not an appropriate addition to the article. By the way, is the image of the actual murder weapon, or just of the type of gun used? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I will do that and remove the irrelevant conversations. The picture is a generic one of that type of gun. KSFT^C 17:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears to me that you have a situation where one editor wants to include the image of a gun of that type, and two or three editors don't think that it is necessary, and the one editor who wants it included is claiming that its removal would be censorship, which it would not be. I am not optimistic that you or any other moderator will be able to bring this dispute to resolution, so I would suggest that you be ready to drop back to an Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: That argument isn't actually unreasonable. Masem argued that it shouldn't be included because it would offend people. KSFT^C 18:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with that a WP:RFC is probably called-for in this particular instance. I refuse to make or read any further comments at the pertinent WP:DRN section and have taken the article in question off my Watchlist. Shearonink (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Shearonink and Robert McClenon: I attempted to open an RFC, and I closed the DRN case. I hadn't done either of those before, so if I did something wrong, feel free to fix it. KSFT^C 04:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If you closed the DRN case, I haven't looked at it yet, but you probably closed it too quickly. A DRN case isn't closed without discussing closure with the parties. I will get back to you shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Airport Case

You commented that one of the editors hasn't been notified of the case. I think that that comment is mistaken. There are two editors. One of them is the filing party. The filing party doesn't have to be notified. The other editor has been notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Oh, you're right; I misread the case. I thought someone else had filed it. I have removed my comment. KSFT^C 16:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

KSFT, I'm the current coordinator at DRN and one of its founders. Simply offering opinions about what you think is best in a dispute generally will not work well there since DRN is focused on mediation, and we generally don't (there are exceptions) get into the issues of a case until all primary parties have responded by giving summaries. (That's not to say that opinion-giving is not permitted, but for it to be effective it is usually best limited to those situations where there is only one indisputably correct outcome set by policy or when it's needed to move along a mediation which has become stuck after extensive discussion at the DRN page. To do it too early simply makes you look biased and cuts off further productive discussion.) If you simply want to give opinions — and there's noting wrong with that — let me strongly recommend that you spend some time at Third Opinion giving opinions there, making sure that as much as possible they are based in policy and clearly citing (and preferably quoting) the parts of policy on which you rely. (And please don't consider that to being sent to the minor leagues: I started at 3O and still give opinions there in addition to working at DRN and being a member of the Mediation Committee.) Best regards and thanks again for your interest in dispute resolution, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: I understand that mediators are supposed to be neutral. Where do you think I've given an opinion on what I think is best? I pointed out that it looks like there's already a consensus, but I didn't express an opinion on whether I agreed with it. KSFT^C 19:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Even if there seems to be a consensus with a minority of one, my opinion is that it is better to let the discussion proceed. If that discussion gets nowhere, an RFC is always a way forward. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

If the other editor doesn't respond in a timely manner, however, the case can be closed. Participation in mediation is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

If there was a clear consensus, the DRN case should be closed for there being no dispute. However, I see no consensus. Every editor who responded in the discussion did so on the basis of what the article name should be, not about the crest, and the dispute which was brought to DRN was about the crest (and we wouldn't even take a case about the name since that should ordinarily be referred to RM which has its own built-in resolution process). Only the two listed editors took plain positions on the crest (one more — Zyxw — took a split-the-baby approach saying that if it's not in the infobox, it should be somewhere in the article). While there may be a consensus about the page name, there's none about the crest and that's the opinion to which I was referring. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that it is now time to ask the editors a question. It can be a question of your choosing, or it can be a restatement of what their position is. In my opinion, the back-and-forth isn't going to get anywhere. The moderator needs to guide the discussion.

It might be necessary at this point to tell them to reply only to you and not to each other. As it is, they are just repeating themselves. I would suggest asking them whether they are willing to rely on an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Now that you have asked each editor a question, I suggest that you state a few ground rules. These should include that they should reply to you as moderator and not engage in threaded discussion (and you should be ready to hat threaded discussion), and should remind that to be civil and concise, and to comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

One of the editors has requested that you close the case because the other editor is going on and on without getting anywhere. I suggest that you close the case and advise that the next step might be a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree; I just closed it. Thank you for your advice throughout this case. KSFT^C 23:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

12:43:03, 25 March 2016 review of submission by Cjnewc

• Cjnewc (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:MACH Energy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, actually just wanted to ask a question. I went over the reliable/unreliable source pages on Wikipedia, and read your comments. Many of my references do focus mainly on MACH, and even have them in the headline, so just wondering why you noted the references had a "passing mention". I am working on compiling more independent sources as mentioned, but I think it would help me if I had a greater sense of why the original references were inadequate.Thanks!Cjnewc (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cjnewc: While there are several sources with relevant information, many of them aren't independent. Most of the ones that are independent have little information. KSFT^C 13:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

objection

you said my article about myself was unimportant. i wanted to have an article about myself to show my friends to show them i can make a Wikipedia page. You calling it unimportant was very disturbing to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinewsmith (talk • contribs) 03:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Carolinewsmith: Welcome to Wikipedia! I understand that it's fun to have a Wikipedia article on yourself, but Wikipedia is not a collection of information about everything. Article subjects have to meet standards of notability, and there has to be information in other reliable sources first. If you have an idea for an article that you think meets the criteria, you can create a draft and have people check it and help you improve it at Articles for Creation (AFC).

Montenegro

its no problem, these are pages by personś not by coutry.

thank you,

i might make up my own page — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldBlueBird (talk • contribs) 03:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Montenegro

who is the page owner and why did your system let me make edits.

thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldBlueBird (talk • contribs) 03:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

BLPPROD on Ethan Cords

Yes, technically, Ethan Cords is up for proposed deletion for lack of references. However, if it were to survive AfD, the referencing situation would almost certainly have been corrected, so I don't see the need for two deletion templates. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I would agree, but I don't think there's a process for removing redundant AFD templates. KSFT^C 23:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Easypod Autoinjector

FYI: tagged for speed deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

So i did as requested and notified all the parties for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Mawlid#Consensus doesn't exist concerning falsehood. --Mawlidman (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm not sure about the etiquette of the DRN and as a result how to respond to the comments of other disputants on the noticeboard. --Mawlidman (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal Attacks at DRN

Inside a hat, no one hears you scream. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

We both noticed at about the same time that that was getting out of hand. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

DR removal

Why did you remove this comment of mine? It was clearly a response to the previous comment, so i don't see how it's "off-topic". --Mawlidman (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mawlidman: DRN is for content disputes, not complaints about editor behavior, so comments about that (like "you should at least return the courtesy" or "Do you have something to hide?") are off-topic there. KSFT^C 20:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, part of my request, elucidated earlier, is that I dispute the content that is alleged to be included in the Ukeles source. I asked for the full sentence because I found it highly strange that the editor cut it off so abruptly. It could add serious insight. I wish you would restore my edit, or at least re-add my request for the full quote because this is all part of the content dispute. --Mawlidman (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

DRN Discussion

I see that you have removed a few comments that are comments on contributors rather than on content. I would suggest either cautioning the editor in question on his talk page or stating a general reminder to all editors to comment on content, not contributors. Also, it looks as though the discussion isn't getting anywhere. You have been very patient, even permitting an editor to go away and come back (which I would not have done), but it may be that you may need to exhaust your patience and advise the participants that the next step will be either a Request for Comments if there is a well-defined issue, or, if the issues are more complex, a request for formal mediation. Good luck. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I think it's starting to get somewhere. If I'm wrong, and nothing happens for a few more days, I'll take your suggestions, but I think that at least one of the points was just a misunderstanding of a policy. KSFT^C 02:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, good luck. I wouldn't have been as patient. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Some mistake

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACond%C3%A9_Nast_Building&type=revision&diff=722029179&oldid=720776914 You must have made some mistake. Also, I wanted to undo it, just that my fingers snapped at the rollback button. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 14:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@QEDK: I don't understand. I do not think that edit was a mistake. Why do you think it is? KSFT^C 15:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The page was not moved but you gave that as the closing rationale. As of now, it is. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@QEDK: That is correct. The edit was not a mistake. The target page existed, and I am not an admin, so I could not perform the move, but, per WP:RM/CI, that does not prevent me from closing it. I tagged the target for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G6 to make way for the move. KSFT^C 17:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Mawlid

This case has been dragging on for more than a month, and DRN is usually for cases that take one to two weeks. It might be time to refer the parties to formal mediation or a Request for Change. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I was hesitant to extend the archive date again, but one issue has already been resolved. I do not plan to extend it again, but I don't think I'll close it until the new archive date. KSFT^C 14:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The archiving robot will probably archive in very shortly, since it has passed the Do Not Archive date. Do you want it closed as a General Close, or Failed, or with no explanation of the closure? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I generally closed it with my suggestions for the article based on the the consensus formed in the discussion. KSFT^C 00:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick message to say thank you for your patience during the discussion on the Dispute Resolution Board. It is much appreciated.Saheeh Info 16:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Biryani

It's not a promising start. The one editor who has commented seems more interested in complaining about the editor than stating issues. You may want to hat some of the comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that. I'm not sure how much of the dispute is about content, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt for now and hope the other involved editor responds. KSFT^C 14:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Closing a Case

You forgot to use the archive templates to box off the closed discussion of Biryani. I have boxed the case for you. The templates are {{DRN archive top| ... closing text ... ~~~~}} and {{DRN archive bottom}} . Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Jennifer Lee

Hi. Thanks for the message. I was trying to clean up her info box which is showing a red Expression error message. When you get a chance could you take a look at it? I'm not sure the most efficient way to clean it up.JaydenDone (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)JaydenDone

API change will break your script

It seems that one of your scripts was using http:// to access the API last week, rather than https:// This is going to break soon, because of changes to the API. You can find more information in this e-mail message. If you need help updating your code to use https:// , then you might be able to find some help at w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard, on the mailing list, or at phab:T136674. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar Award

This Barnstar is awarded for adding an important adjective to clarify the introductory paragraph of the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers Article. Lottamiata (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• 
  Barnstar for Editorial Excellence

Capital Punishment discussion

You have a tough one there. It appears that the two editors want to talk about conduct and that you (properly) want to focus on content. Good luck and good patience. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

DRN

Thank you for helping out at DRN! Just one technical note: When you close a case, the {{DRN archive top}} tag replaces the "Do not archive until" comment lines below the filing editor line. That allows the case to be archived sooner and allows the name of the filing editor to show in the closed case. No big deal, just thought you'd want to know. Thanks again and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

@TransporterMan: I'll keep that in mind! I think I was on mobile when I closed that case, so I'm going to blame that for the formatting. KSFT^C 16:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Football articles

@Number 57: I have a list of 8481 articles with possible discrepancies here. Can you confirm that this is what you want, and that the list contains mostly the right articles? KSFT^C 16:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi KSFT. I was hoping for a list of players together with the categories that appear to be missing from their articles – this will enable me to do some sorting (to weed out the renamed/misnamed clubs in the infobox) and them some adding via AWB or Hotcat. Cheers, Number 57 17:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I updated the list (after fixing some bugs that I think caused it to include extra names), and it now has, after each name, a list of categories that might be missing. KSFT^C 18:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic, thank you, that's a great help. I might come back at some point in the future with another request (maybe Scotland next time). Cheers! Number 57 18:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, just let me know! Feel free to cross names off or remove them or whatever would help you; I don't plan to use the list for anything else. KSFT^C 18:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I've started having a look at the list, and I think something may have gone wrong in the system you used to create it. What it seems to have created is a list of players together with clubs listed in the infoboxes that are not linked, rather than the categories that are missing. Steve Abbley is an example – there are three clubs listed for which he is not in the category, but the only output listed is "Parks", which is the one of the three that is not linked. Similarly James Adams (footballer, born 1896) only has his non-linked clubs listed, but not Matlock Town. Number 57 17:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'll look into it. KSFT^C 18:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I think I fixed the problem, and I updated the list. Let me know if you find any other problems (or if it turns out that I didn't fix that one). KSFT^C 21:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Cheers; I've had a brief check and it looks good. I'll do a more detailed analysis tomorrow (planning to copy it into Excel and start sorting). Thanks again for creating this – it's a huge help. Cheers, Number 57 22:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey. I've introduced the list you created to the Football Wikiproject and a few editors are now working on adding the missing cats, so thanks very much again for creating it. Having spent a bit more time on it, I had a few queries/suggested refinements:

• It picked up several players who weren't missing categories – this seems to have been because the current club function was included in the search? This is also used for managerial positions, so it was erroneously identifying missing player categories that weren't correct.
• Some players seem to have been missed entirely – e.g. David Lloyd (footballer, born 1872) – despite being in the English footballers category. I have no idea why this may be.
• Given how useful it is, as I mentioned previously, it would be great to run it for other countries, and perhaps to do England again on a regular basis to pick up new articles etc. Would it be possible to explain exactly how you did it so that I don't have to bother you again?

Cheers, Number 57 22:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I can definitely run it on other categories and have a bot automatically update a list of articles with possible problems regularly. Updating a list would require a BRFA and some changes to the code, which will probably take a few days. I did include the currentclub parameter as one to compare against the categories. For players, it seems to be the team they currently play for. If that isn't correct, let me know, but if it is, I don't think there's much I can do about it. Do any of the articles missing from the list have discrepancies between the teams listed in the infobox and in the categories? I left out ones without problems on purpose, because the point was to find articles with problems. KSFT^C 22:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think excluding currentclub would be a good idea as that's not exclusively used for players (it's also used for people who are now coaches, managers, assistant managers and other odd positions (take a look at Jimmy Glass in your list!).

The David Lloyd article linked above was one missing categories (I've since added the ones that were missing)

Another issue I've remembered is the "wartime guest" situation. During WWII, regular league action was cancelled, but regional football was played instead. Players who played for clubs in those years will have the normal club name in the infobox, but are in special categories (e.g. Category:Sunderland A.F.C. wartime guest players. Is it possible to say that if Player A has Club X F.C. in the infobox, he only appears on the errors list if he is in neither "Club X F.C. players" nor "Club X F.C. wartime guest players" instead of just "Club X F.C. players" (I hope that makes sense?). Cheers, Number 57 23:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Yeah, looking for "[whatever] wartime guest players" should be possible. I'm not sure about excluding the currentlub parameter, though. Wouldn't that list a large number of articles that contain an extra category because the category for the current team isn't anywhere else in the infobox? I'll try to figure out why David Lloyd wasn't included. KSFT^C 13:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The current team listing is duplicated in the full list of clubs further down in the infobox, so there shouldn't be any articles that have only the current team listed in that part (although no doubt there are a tiny number, I think the issue of having so many false positives outweighs it). Cheers, Number 57 18:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, another couple that weren't picked up if it helps: Josh Klein-Davies and Jamie Shore – neither were in Category:Brislington F.C. players (they are now as I've checked what linked to the club article). Strangely it did pick up that Klein-Davies was missing from the Brigwater Town category, but there were several others (e.g. Shepton Mallet F.C.) that it missed too. Number 57 18:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

In addition, I forgot to say that the list has already helped identify one article that looks like being a hoax as someone had not played for the clubs listed in his infobox, so another positive outcome! Number 57 18:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I fixed the problem that caused those to be left out. It had to do with the spacing of the infobox parameters. I can leave out the currentclub parameter in the future, and I can file a BRFA for regularly-updated lists soon. Do you think all of the articles on football players are in a nationality category? If not, what do you think would be the best way to find all of them? Out of curiosity, which article was a hoax? KSFT^C 19:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, yes I think all footballers will be in a nationality category. So will the bot update the lists, say monthly or something? The hoax was Jay Lee Harris, which is now at AfD. Cheers, Number 57 20:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, sorry for bombarding you with messages, but one more thought: There are some clubs that will not warrant categories as they are so non-notable. Is there any way that these can be marked out so that they don't get flagged up during the search run? Either a separate list could be maintained somewhere, or somehow the names marked in the infobox? Number 57 12:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57:That should be possible. If you create a list of the non-notable (or notable, if that's easier) clubs, I should be able to have the bot ignore them (or all clubs except them). KSFT^C 12:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Shall we have a defined places where these lists are added? Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Missing categories as a header page and then the nationality pages that will be updated by the bot at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Missing categories/England etc? We can also have the list of non-notable clubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Missing categories/Null or something? If you're happy with that. Cheers, Number 57 17:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Also (sorry), another one I've realised the list needs to avoid picking up is "Footown footballers" (which happens in the case of multi-sports clubs). For instance South China AA and Category:South China AA footballers... Number 57 19:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I'm not sure what you mean by "avoid picking up". Shouldn't it also look for categories that end with " footballers" in addition to ones that end with " players"?

If we put the lists in the bot's userspace instead of the WikiProject's, I won't need to do a BRFA. You can transclude them there if you want, and you can put the list of categories to ignore anywhere, but it would be best if the bot didn't need to edit outside of its userspace. KSFT^C 19:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't explain it very well. It's basically the same as the wartime guest situation, so the bot should only list cases where there are no matching "Footown F.C. players", "Footown F.C. wartime guests" and "Footown F.C. footballers". Hope that makes sense now?

No problem using the bot's userspace. I can create the main page in the football wikiproject space and then link to the bot's userspace for the clublist? Would that suit? Cheers, Number 57 19:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Ah, I understand. That would be fine; you might want to transclude it. I'll run a test soon. KSFT^C 19:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Cool. If you want to give it a test, I've started the null list here. Cheers, Number 57 20:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It's looking great – thanks again for all your work on this. One suggestion for a small improvement – can the outputs be linked? (i.e. instead of the output of Chris Abel: Bradford City F.C., it shows as Chris Abel: Bradford City F.C.)? This will help editors link through to the articles and also help flag up obvious errors in spelling or missing club articles as they'll be redlinks. Cheers!

@Number 57: I changed that and am updating the pages with links now. KSFT^C 23:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and would it be possible to link the clubs listed too? How often are you planning to run the bot? A few editors have removed several hundred players between us, which is a good start! Number 57 09:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Which category should it link to? Each club corresponds to multiple categories (the "<whatever> footballers" one, the "<whatever> players" one, and the "<whatever> wartime guest" one) A club gets listed if it's in the infobox and the article is in none of the corresponding categories.

If you're removing them as you go, running the bot again shouldn't do much unless the articles have changed otherwise, so it shouldn't be necessary to run it very often KSFT^C 10:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant on the list, the club outputs are "Barton Albion", "Harland Social Club", "Enfield (1893) F.C." etc. If these could be linked, that would also be quite helpful. As it would show up straight away clubs that don't have articles or mis-spellings as they'll be redlinks.

Maybe once we've hacked through the list we can ask for another run, which should also pick up any new or amended articles (I think a lot of the ones with missing categories are cases where a player has moved clubs and the infobox has been updated but not the categories). Cheers, Number 57 10:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Oh, you want the links to go to the articles on the clubs, not the categories. I can do that. Let me know when you've finished a list so I can run it again. Maybe I'll run empty lists again occasionally to find any new problems. KSFT^C 11:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey. Sorry to keep bothering you, but I've noticed a couple of anomolies: The bot didn't pick up that Nigel O'Loughlin had "Shrewsbury Town" listed in his infobox (i.e. without the F.C.), but was in Category:Shrewsbury Town F.C. players. And it also missed Jacob Hazel not having Category:SK Sprint-Jeløy players and Category:Buxton F.C. players (I've since added them). Number 57 12:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, it didn't pick up any of the clubs that had the F.C. suffix missing in the infobox on Ian_Stevens_(footballer) (the diff is me fixing it). Number 57 16:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, it seems to be missing players listed as on loan (these are prefixed with a →). An example would be Phillip Hulme, where it failed to pick up Crewe Alexandra and Livington. Sorry again for all the messages. Number 57 19:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I haven't replied here in a little while, so I thought I'd give you an update: I am working on these changes, but I wrote the bot quickly and badly at first, so I'm rewriting parts of it, to make it easier to fix problems and modify it and also to help with later bots I might write. I think I should probably have it done by the end of this weekend. KSFT^C 01:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem at all – I certainly wouldn't say it was badly written – it's been a huge help to the WikiProject already! Looking forward to seeing the results of the next run though, as we'll hopefully have removed three of the biggest chunks of incorrect links (three club articles that were moved relatively recently). Cheers, Number 57 07:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, do you think you could give the bot a run? There are several hundred examples of mislinked clubs that have been fixed, so it would be good to remove them from the list in one go so we can concentrate on the ones that are actually missing completely. Cheers, Number 57 18:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I can run it again, but I've run into some problems rewriting parts of it, so it won't yet have the changes you've asked for. I'm still working on it. KSFT^C 19:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem – just getting rid of the large number of mislinks would be great for now (I believe I fixed over 4,000 links, so hopefully it should wipe a good man off). Cheers, Number 57 19:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Religious citizenship

You omitted to provide a reason for deletion when you tagged this. If you don't add a reason then it is very likely that deletion will be refused on those grounds. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep up the good fight

Hey KSFT, just stopping by to leave a word of encouragement. I see you are keeping active on Wikipedia. I remember the month you and I both posted on the optional RfA poll. Keep your activity going; keep on doing the positive activities that lead in the right direction. Let me know if you ever want to leave any comments. All the best, —Prhartcom♥ 04:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: Thank you for the encouragement. I've been much less active here recently, for several reasons, but I will continue making the small edits I've been making. I hope you do an RFA soon; you got very positive responses to the poll, and your chances have probably only increased since then. KSFT^C 18:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi KSFT,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello KSFT. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, KSFT. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello KSFT,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 814 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

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. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Gary Null edits

Hi, on Gary Null (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it looks like you undid an edit by Perpetual808, and then immediately undid your own undo (thereby restoring Perpetual808's edit). Was that intentional?

In any event, I undid your edit, restoring the article to the version that existed prior to Perpetual808's recent edit war. I also replied to his comment on the article's talk page, for whatever good it might do. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: I correctly determined that the edit was bad, rolled it back, and then double-checked that I had done what I wanted. That time, I misread the edit and thought the rollback was a mistake. By the time I noticed that, you had already reverted it again. I agree with your edit. KSFT^C 00:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I figured that it was probably something like that, but I didn't want to jump to a conclusion. Occasionally you'll see someone do an undo-and-redo because they mis-clicked the rollback or Twinkle button with their first revert, or because they want to endorse (or assume responsibility for) an edit made by a troubled editor, or something else in that vein. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello KSFT,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools: Vote here.
• Reduce your review load: Vote here

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

Page mover granted

Hello, KSFT. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Heads up

First, congratulations on being granted the page-mover right! Also, wanted to give you a heads up that this whole thing is extremely controversial and is presently being discussed at the Administrators' noticeboard in an effort to do something about the controversy. I'm afraid that I may have to take your close to Wikipedia:Move review (unless you change it to "Procedural close"), because a "No consensus" close just says to involved editors that they can come back in 2 or 3 months and try again, whereas my "Not moved" close in October meant that editors should wait a lot longer before trying again. Once again, congratulations, and welcome to my world!  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 17:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: (I almost missed this because of section right below it that was created shortly after.) As I explained when I closed the RM, I don't think there was enough substantive discussion about the move to determine that there was consensus either way, and I don't think more discussion of it in the future would be a bad thing. KSFT^C 20:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Saraiki RM

Hi, would you be able to undo your close of the RM and let the discussion run its course? It might look like a mess the way it is, but it has been our best attempt so far, and keeping away the socks that have dominated the previous RM, MRV and RfC has taken quite a bit of community effort. The discussion is still ongoing, and I think we definitely need to receive more input so that we could finally put the matter to rest. A premature "no consensus" is only going to contribute to the shitstorms that have been going on since October. The procedural correctness has been an issue only for the (probably understandably annoyed) closer of the previous discussion, and I think there is consensus among the participants in the discussion (as well as this uninvolved user) that the RM was appropriate). – Uanfala (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Uanfala: You're right; I closed that discussion too early. I have now undone it. KSFT^C 21:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I might have disagreed with closing it so soon, but I have to admit that the discussion is a difficult one, and that within the limits of what was presented in it so far, your close was reasonable. Cheers. – Uanfala (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you...

For catching and promptly tagging the G10 attack page. The vigilance of editors like you helps keep things running smoothly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Gladstone (disambiguation)

Usually when performing a non-admin closure of contentious discussions, usually a closing comment is standard, so that all of those involved in the discussion can understand that you have given proper consideration to the discussion. Also, it's not clear if you're considering this "moved" due to "consensus" or some "other reason", since a pure !vote count doesn't show a significant majority is in favor of the move. What caused you to decide in the way you did. While NAC are not prohibited in contentious discussions, they are discourage. See WP:RMNAC for more on this topic. TiggerJay (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Closing WP:RM discussions

Can you please spend a little extra time and explain your thought process when closing discussions?

• Talk:Cry_Me_a_River#Requested_move_21_December_2016: In this case there are four support !votes, and two oppose !votes, and you closed it as no consensus without explanation.
• Talk:Hammersberg_Skanse#Requested_move_20_December_2016: This didn't even have a single vote, and the discussion was just beginning. Why not relist this discussion and allow it to take its course? There's no rush.
• Talk:Christiansfjell_Fortress#Requested_move_20_December_2016: This has one weak oppose, and three other comments. A rationale for why you closed this discussion the way you did, with an explanation as to how you weighed the arguments given, would be helpful.
• Talk:Bophuthatswana_conflict_(1994)#Requested_move_13_December_2016: Again, while this discussion is slow-moving, it clearly needs to be carried out. Simply closing it after 7 days without even relisting doesn't really do the conversation justice. If you have a solid reason for closing this, great, but you need to share that.

If you want to revisit any of these closures please feel free. I hope that you will take my request seriously - I am also working on closing old RM discussions, and I would have handled several of these differently. It would be helpful if we can discuss these and help each other improve, as we're both working on the same thing. Bradv 17:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bradv: For the first of those closes, the opposes claimed that the other song is the primary topic because it has more long-term significance, a point that was not addressed by the supporters. Because of how close the page views were, I didn't think a strong case had been made that that song is the primary topic. For the second one, I agree with you, and I have reverted my close and relisted it. For the third, the proposer and all three comments mention the Norwegian Wikipedia or Norwegian sources. These are not relevant per COMMONNAME, which says that the title should be the one used primarily in English sources, so I gave little weight to them. The weak oppose claims that the current title "seems far more popular in general use". While that's how the title should be decided according to policy, the claim is unsubstantiated, so I also gave little weight to that. Because no one brought up strong, policy-based arguments, I decided that a consensus had not been formed. For the fourth discussion, I did not close it after seven days; it had been open for almost three weeks and was relisted once. There had been no more discussion in the eleven days since it was relisted. All three participants had different suggestions for the new title, and none of them responded to the other suggestions, so I didn't think consensus had been formed.

I'm new to closing RMs, so I appreciate the advice; I'll definitely try to explain my closes in the future. KSFT^C 17:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I think you'll find that if you put your explanation directly in the closing comments it will be clearer for all involved. Bradv 18:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

As an admin who sometimes closes requested moves, I agree with the 'No Consensus' for Talk:Cry Me a River#Requested move 21 December 2016. As noted above, this would have been better if KSFT had spelled out their rationale, but the case for a move was really unconvincing. The proponents wanted a different song (by Justin Timberlake) to be made the primary topic of 'Cry Me a River', which happens to be the name of a 1953 song that was widely covered by others, maybe 60 times altogether. (One person in the discussion said the 1953 song was 'vastly superior in long-term significance', and you could see their argument). People wanting the Timberlake song to be primary would surely have needed better evidence than what was offered in the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I will certainly explain my rationale as I close discussions in the future. KSFT^C 18:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

While we're discussing our RM closures, I want to ask about Talk:J.R. Quiñahan#Requested move 21 December 2016. You closed it as not moved, but MOS:INITIALS, as quoted by the proposer, says that the periods should be omitted when "An overwhelming majority of reliable sources do [so]". In this case, every single source cited in the article omits them. Could you explain your reasoning? KSFT^C 17:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

As I stated in the closing rationale, I had to determine consensus from the strength of the arguments presented and the will of the editors who commented. Even though the sources omit the periods, that fact was insufficient to sway the editor who commented, and therefore I could not determine that consensus was in favour of omitting the periods. Bradv 18:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You may find this helpful, from WP:CLOSE:

Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. He or she is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view, he or she is expected to decide according to the consensus. The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument.

Bradv 18:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I still disagree with the close, and I think the oppose should have been discarded, as it does "flatly contradict established policy"; MOS:INITIALS and WP:COMMONNAME clearly say that in cases like this, the name used primarily (unanimously in this case) in sources should be the title of the article. KSFT^C 18:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, it is my job as closer to determine consensus, not to overrule other editors with my own personal opinion. Disregarding that oppose and moving the article despite consensus would be wildly inappropriate. Bradv 18:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note I'm not experienced with closing RMs, but I think it's not generally a good idea to close discussions that are ongoing, even if the nominal 7-day period is over. – Uanfala (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you undo the closures and then relist them? George Ho (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Wait... you already relisted one. If not relisting, can you add rationales there instead? George Ho (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, regarding Talk:Bophuthatswana conflict (1994)#Requested move 13 December 2016, people agreed to use "Crisis" and "1994", yet you closed it as "no consensus". Look at Talk:Raymond Wong Pak-ming: there were votes on "Bak" and others on "Pak", but consensus favored natural disambiguation over parenthetical one. Also, the closer used "Pak" at default. Can you do the same for the "Bophuthatswana" part? George Ho (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: I have added my rationales for the there that I kept closed. I'm not sure what your point is about the fourth one; I explained my rationale above. KSFT^C 21:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Even when "1994 Bophuthatswana crisis", "Bophuthatswana Crisis of 1994" and "Bophuthatswana Crisis (1994)" were picked, the consensus agreed to change from "conflict" to "crisis". I just used the other RM as an example or precedent. George Ho (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been thinking: why not change to "Bophuthatswana Crisis (1994)" to follow the title's current format? Would that work? George Ho (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: After further consideration, I think this closure was correct. It could possibly have been kept open for another seven days, but I don't think it would have resulted in a consensus. The best thing to do here is probably to create a new RM discussion with a concrete proposal on where to move the article to, rather than a ?. Bradv 21:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Just for a note, someone else reverted your closure on "Cry Me a River", and then an administrator disambiguated it. George Ho (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Move review for J.J. Watt

An editor has asked for a Move review of J.J. Watt. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello KSFT,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 814 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello KSFT,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 814 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, April 2017

Bots Newsletter, April 2017

Greetings! The BAG Newsletter is now the Bots Newsletter, per discussion. As such, we've subscribed all bot operators to the newsletter. You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list. Highlights for this newsletter include: Arbcom Magioladitis ARBCOM case has closed. The remedies of the case include: Community encouraged to review common fixes Community encouraged to review policy on cosmetic edits Developers encouraged to improve AWB interface Bot approvals group encouraged to carefully review BRFA scope Reminders/Restrictions specific to Magioladitis BRFAs We currently have 27 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing! Discussions There are multiple ongoing discussions surrounding bot-related matters. In particular: RFC on COSMETICBOT Efforts at WP:CHECKWIKI to identify cosmetic fixes Requested move for the Bot Owners' Noticeboard A phabricator ticket T162685 has been made to have a "bots" tag, so issues related to bot frameworks can be tracked New things Several new things are around: A BAG Guide has been created (WP:BAGG, discussion). Users now have the option to hide AWB from their watchlists via a script (WP:HIDEAWB, discussion) The guidance on how to deal with bot issues has been overhauled (WP:BOTISSUE, discussion) The bot policy has been updated to clarify that bot operators are required to register accounts. (WP:BOTACCOUNT, discussion) Wikimania Wikimania 2017 is happening in Montreal, during 9–13 August. If you plan to attend, or give a talk, let us know! Thank you! edited by:Headbomb 11:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC) (You can unsubscribe from future newsletters by removing your name from this list.)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm L3X1. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, United Express Flight 3411, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

L3X1 (distant write) 12:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

My contribution to the article "Dark Energy" is being repeatedly removed

I have made a contribution to the Wikipedia entry "Dark Energy" under the section, "Observational skepticism" and my entry has been repeatedly removed. I have just read this email message -

"Jasper Deng‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪April 2017‬". Your recent editing history at Dark energy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not rever..."

My contribution is below and certainly can be described as "Observational skepticism", so I am attempting to place in the correct section of the article "Dark Energy". I believe the "editor" is practicing simple censorship.

The analytical method used by Riess and coworkers (1998) of the 37 SNe Ia is fatally flawed. The SNe Ia distances were not used but the magnitudes, log-transformed values, were used. (An object magnitude is not the distance.) The correct use of position and velocity required to solve problems of physics was ignored. It is shown that when the distance vs. velocity data are properly analyzed using the FRW model, without the cosmological constant, is a significantly better fit.

I have published several article in physics/astronomy some of which are listed here

M. L. Smith and A. M. Oztas, Microscopic gravity as a relationship between matter, energy and spacetime. Horizons in World Physics, A. Reimer, Ed., Vol. 287, ISBN: 978-1-63484-193-1, Nova Science, Hauppauge, N.Y. 11788 (2016). A.M. Oztas and M.L. Smith, Spacetime curvature and the cosmic horizon: derivations using the Newtonian world and the Friedmann-Robertson- Walker metric. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 449 (2): 1270-1274.doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv346 (2015). A.M. Oztas and M.L. Smith,The Cosmological Constant Constrained with Union2.1 Supernovae Type Ia Data. Derivation and Evaluation of Several FRW and Carmeli Models Presenting Underwhelming Support for the Standard Model. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, arXiv:1401.0724 (2014). A.M. Oztas and M.L. Smith, A Polytropic Solution of the Expanding Universe. Constraining Relativistic and Non-Relativistic Matter Densities Using Astronomical Results. In Aspects of Today's Cosmology, InTech Publishing, http://www.intechweb.org/books (2012). M.L. Smith, B. Sekaran, A.M. Öztas and J. Paul, Constraints on Dark Energy and Dark Matter from Supernovae and Gamma Ray Burst Data. in Dark Energy: Theories, Developments and Implications, Nova Science, Hauppauge, NY 11788 (2010). A.M. Öztaş, M.L. Smith and J. Paul, Spacetime curvature is important for cosmology constrained with supernova emission. International Journal of Theoretical Physics (2008). DOI: 10.1007/s10773-008-9680-7 M.L. Smith and A.M. Öztaş, Epochs of discontinuity for the standard model of cosmology with supernovae observational data. Advanced Studies in Theoretical Physics 2: 1-10 (2008). M.L. Smith, A.M. Öztaş and J. Paul, Estimation of redshifts from early galaxies. Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie 32-1: http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-321/aflb321m544.htm (2007). M.L. Smith, A.M. Öztaş and J. Paul, A model of light from ancient blue emissions. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 45: 937-952 (2006). A. M. Öztaş and M.L. Smith, Elliptical solutions to the standard cosmology model with realistic values of matter density. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 45: 925-936 (2006).

Again, the "editor" has been deleting my valid contribution, (my math is absolutely correct) and I submit his/her behavior is simply censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.130.228 (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer Roll Call

This is a volunteer roll call sent to you on behalf of the current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Coordinator, Robert McClenon, and is being sent to you because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to the roll call list. Those who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after May 31, 2017 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after May 31, 2017, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

speedy deletion of Results Driven Marketing, LLC

Would you mind sending me a copy of what was deleted. I apologize, I thought when I saved it I was doing so in draft form. I was working on the page and I had not thought out the exact wording to make it encyclopedic. There are a number of reasons that I was preparing the article. Basically, this company has created a new metric that would save multitudes of internet marketing professionals serious time when developing keyword. Since I hadn't worked out all of the language, to make it 100% non-promotional or sales like, I was trying to make this a work in progress. I think you will agree that what was written was not promotional, but only factual. I would appreciate a copy of the speedy deletion text. Thank you and now that you know my plans any comments or opinion you can provide would be appreciated! Best - Mike ```` mikebannan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebannan (talk • contribs) 02:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: X-Day (video game)

Hello KSFT. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of X-Day (video game), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 cannot be applied to software. Thank you. SoWhy 12:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Demian Kalach

Hello KSFT. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Demian Kalach, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: multiple named parts in notable shows indicates significance, text is not, as far as I can tell, exclusively promotional. Thank you. SoWhy 07:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello KSFT,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 814 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Weather Trends International

I don't understand why my submission was rejected when I used credible news sources for my story: Forbes, Freakonomics, Buzzfeed, Marketwatch, etc. Aren't those all credible sources? All of those stories were written by staff writers of the publications and none of them are promotional or sponsored.

So, I am very confused why the story was rejected, but even more importantly I would love someone to either help me edit it to make it into Wikipedia or tell me what I need to change to get it accepted. Thanks for your assistance.

Tracyalicious (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tracyalicious: I didn't mention your sources when I declined the draft, because they look fine, but the draft itself reads like an advertisement. Make sure to read the page about our neutral point of view policy. Do you have any kind of connection to the company you're writing about? KSFT ^(t|c) 18:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@KSFT: Thanks for your very quick response! I thought it was written from a neutral point of view. I'm not sure what isn't neutral about it. When reading other entries about other companies, it seems to fit the format of how those are written. I guess I'm having trouble understanding what that criteria is. (It is not sales writing, and there are no adjectives or anything to promote the company.) I thought it was pretty factual and backed up all the facts I found with sources. So, that is why I am confused and why I mentioned my sources. What do you suggest I change to make it work better? Is it possible to work with another editor to make it work? Thanks for your help, btw.

Tracyalicious (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tracyalicious: The last sentence of the lead and the last sentence of the first body section are the biggest problems. There are also a couple of separate, minor issues: the "See also" section should be a list of links to other articles, not just related phrases, and external links should usually have text describing what they are, probably Official website in this case. KSFT ^(t|c) 18:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@KSFT: Okay, I will try again on those sentences. On the see also, the problem there was the markup language. I still haven't figured out how to do it correctly, and perhaps I put in the wrong phrase? Should it be "See Also" and then links to similar companies? And as for external links, I did put official website next to it. I still see it there. Not sure why you said that. I followed the format of many other pages here.

Tracyalicious (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your help.

Tracyalicious (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello KSFT, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, July 2017

Bots Newsletter, July 2017

Greetings! Here is the 4th issue of the Bots Newsletter (formerly the BAG Newletter). You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list. Highlights for this newsletter include: BAG BU Rob13 and Cyberpower678 are now members of the BAG (see RfBAG/BU Rob13 and RfBAG/Cyberpower678 3). BU Rob13 and Cyberpower678 are both administrators; the former operates BU RoBOT which does a plethora of tasks, while the latter operates Cyberbot I (which replaces old bots), Cyberbot II (which does many different things), and InternetArchiveBot which combats link rot. Welcome to the BAG! BRFAs We currently have 12 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing! Discussions Efforts at WP:CHECKWIKI to identify cosmetic fixes are still ongoing. The RFC on COSMETICBOT has concluded with "a clear consensus exists to adopt the proposed language". The new wording is now live. The venue for bot appeals and reexaminations has been changed from WP:BRFA to WP:BOTN (see discussion) The Wikipedia:Bot owner's noticeboard is now the Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard (see discussion). New things A historical correction was made to WP:BOTPOL (see discussion). WP:HIDEBOTS now mentions how to hide all bots from your watchlist, not only specific bots. The phabricator ticket T162685 is now closed, and we now have "#Bots-Framework" tag, so issues related to bot frameworks can be tracked. Wikibits.js has been removed (see discussion). 21 inactive bots have been deflagged (see discussion). WP:BOTISSUE has been updated to mention that BAG members can act as neutral mediators in bot-related disputes. WP:INTERWIKIBOT has been updated to reflect the post-February 2013 practice of putting interwiki links on Wikidata, rather than on Wikipedia (see discussion). Upcoming HTML Tidy will be phased out in June 2018, or possibly earlier. This may affect some bots (see FAQ). Wikimania Wikimania 2017 is happening in Montreal, during 9–13 August. If you plan to attend, or give a talk, let us know! Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 17:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC) (You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Footballer categories

Any chance you could run the bot to update the missing categories lists? Cheers, Number 57 12:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I will definitely look for that source code and try to get it working again. It might take a while, but I'll try to get to it. KSFT ^(t|c) 16:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Pacers-Pistons brawl RM closure

Hi KSFT!

I was just wondering why you decided to close the RM here: Talk:Pacers–Pistons_brawl#Requested_move_4_August_2017, as it was 2–2 and hadn't been relisted. Cheers! EvertonFC13^(talk2me) 15:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Evertonfc13: I was trying to follow the slightly unclear instructions on WP:RM/CI, which describes what no consensus means, and then says to relist "when a discussion cannot otherwise be closed". I took that to mean that a discussion can be closed as no consensus whenever the discussion time elapses without consensus formed. I realize that that interpretation doesn't make much sense, because then discussions would never be relisted (only when there is neither consensus nor no consensus), but I'm still not sure what it does mean. KSFT ^(t|c) 16:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I just don't think there is a clear lack of consensus with only three responses. I would like for it to be reopened if you are okay with that. Cheers, EvertonFC13^(talk2me) 16:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I just undid my close and relisted the discussion instead. KSFT ^(t|c) 16:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello KSFT, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleting old heading

Hi, Since the Ramona Moore page has now been moved there is no need to keep the old heading, why did you remove my deletion tag? Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Davidgoodheart: I was just about to ask you about these edits. You replaced a standard redirect with strange content. It looks like you might have been trying to tag them for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure. I also don't know what "old heading" you're referring to. I believe the pages you edited should be redirects, as they were previously. What do you think they should be? KSFT ^(t|c) 06:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know which page you meant. I still don't know what you meant by "the old heading", and I don't know what you were trying to do with those edits. Unless you object, I'll revert them. KSFT ^(t|c) 06:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

When you click on Ramona Moore it says (Redirected from Ramona Moore) and when you click on that it just takes you to the old heading of the page which is no longer needed, and deleting the old title will not cause the page any harm. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Davidgoodheart: I think you're describing how redirects work. What you did was attempt to delete the redirect. There is no "heading" except the note that says that you were redirected. KSFT ^(t|c) 06:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I want to delete the Redirects because on the Category:Formerly missing people found dead category page, the name then comes up twice under two different headings which is confusing and it is not needed. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Davidgoodheart: The redirects probably shouldn't be in that category, then, but that isn't a good reason to delete them. In any case, this is not the place to discuss whether they should be deleted. KSFT ^(t|c) 06:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Well then would you know how to fix the problem of it not coming up twice on that page without deleting the redirects? Davidgoodheart (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello KSFT, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes to Barings

Hello KSFT,

I am apart of the Digital Marketing team within Barings and we would like to make some changes to our Wikipedia page. Thank you for taking the time to review the information that was changed recently. Last year Barings Asset Management merged with several other companies and is now known as "Barings". I listed out several links that supports this statement below.

• https://www.massmutual.com/about-us/news-and-press-releases/press-releases/2016/09/12/08/22/new-barings-launches-today
• https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2016/09/12/870942/0/en/New-Barings-Launches-Today.html
• https://www.ft.com/content/ee67cb38-75de-11e6-b60a-de4532d5ea35
• http://www.barings.com/news/press-releases/new-barings-launches-today

The content that is shown on Baring Asset Management is extremely out of date and it needs to be updated as soon as possible. We will also have to redirect the old name that is no longer being used from Baring Asset Management to Barings. The new Barings page should not redirect users back to the Barings Bank page. Can you please undo the changes that you have made? You should be able to find additional information supporting the changes on the Barings - About Us Page

Thanks,

Dr.300stryon (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dr.300stryon: The first thing you should do is disclose your paid editing. We strongly discourage paid editing, and the terms of service require that you disclose it. You can do this with Template:Paid on your userpage. Once you do that, you can start a discussion on the talk page about whether the article should be moved. KSFT ^(t|c) 19:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@KSFT: Hi KSFT I don't understand why I need to disclose paid editing on those pages. I am not using a third-party to update the content for Barings. I work for the firm Barings and this information needs to get updated as soon as possible. Can you please undo the changes that you have made recently? Please let me know if you would like me to setup a time to discuss this over the phone. Dr.300stryon (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not you have a third party editing the article for you, as an employee of that company, you are being paid to edit the article. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, not a place for businesses to advertise, and companies do not own articles about them. If you think the article should be moved, you can start a discussion on the talk page. KSFT ^(t|c) 16:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello KSFT, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Carnegie

Hello KSFT,

As I've recently read Andrew Carnegie's Autobiography, I noticed a mistake in Wikipedia with regards to the information about him. I just wanted to ask you to check the Andrew Carnegie article you edited. Particularly the figures with regards to his Net Worth. If he gave away 90% of his wealth and according to many sources he was worth around $250-300 billion today, how come 90% of his wealth is $4.76 billion. That's more like 2% of his wealth! I believe you used some website to calculate the inflation which, as far as I am aware, starts from 1913. Therefore, you cannot calculate how much $480 million in 1901 was worth today. Even in 1913 the sum is way, way lower than it should be. Andrew Carnegie is the second richest men in the American history, he could not have sold his company for $13 billion.

According to Forbes in 2006 he was worth $281.2 billion http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/14/richest-americans-alltime-biz_cx_pw_as_0914ialltime_slide_3.html

Please, correct this as it creates confusion. There is a documentary by History Channel (The Men Who Built America) where his biographer, David Nasaw, explains that when Andrew sold his Carnegie Steel Company to J.P. Morgan for $480 million, it was what is the equivalent of $400 billion today. The programme was launched in 2012.

Thank you very much for your time! Carnegie Fan

It looks like the issue has been fixed in the two years or so I've neglected to respond to this message. I'm adding a timestamp here, because I think that's why this section isn't being automatically archived. KSFT ^(t|c) 02:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

deletion of signature guitar pages

are you deleting all signature guitar pages because you thought they were adverts?

I don't know what this message is about, but I'm adding a timestamp here so this section is archived. KSFT ^(t|c) 02:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Article Draft:Arjun_Mishra

Respected Sir,

Please have a look again and let me know if I fixed all issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Arjun_Mishra

Thanks,

Mandeep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandeepkr (talk • contribs) 13:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, KSFT. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:KSFT|<font color="aa8866" style="font-family:serif"><b>KSFT</b></font>]] <sup>([[User talk:KSFT|t]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/KSFT|c]])</sup> → KSFT ^(t|c)

to

[[User:KSFT|<span style="color: #aa8866; font-family: serif;"><b>KSFT</b></span>]] <sup>([[User talk:KSFT|t]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/KSFT|c]])</sup> → KSFT ^(t|c)

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello KSFT, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello KSFT, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Reliable citations

Hi KSFT, thanks for reviewing my article s-finite measure. I have one question: what kind of additional references do you think should be in the article? Because the definition and the properties are backed by a up to date book and/or proofs that show the claimed properties. Cheers --NikelsenH (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@NikelsenH: In general, articles should be supported by more than one source, both for verifiability and to show that the subjects are notable. It would be great if you could find another source or two, maybe other textbooks or papers that describe s-finite measures. KSFT ^(t|c) 15:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks --NikelsenH (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Skegness Pier copy vio

Hi, I see you have made a note that content I today copied from Skegness to Skegness Pier has at some point been directly copied from elsewhere. Admittedly, I hadn't got as far as to check and rewrite/restructure the remainder of the article, and if this is the case, then would previous revisions of Skegness not be affected too? Would there need to be a mass deletion of historic revisions there? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bungle: After looking more closely, I noticed that the news article is dated 13 May 2017, years after the text was first put on Wikipedia. I think the copyvio is theirs, and we don't need to revdel. KSFT ^(t|c) 18:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess that's always the thing really - who wrote it first. I appreciate, given I copied the text today into a new article, that without knowing where it came from, it seemed like it may have been copied from that source, however as you note, the initial text from the Skegness article pre-dates it. Perhaps if you'd have left a note on my talk page about your concern, I could have clarified what I had done and it could have been resolved that way :) In saying that, I won't necessarily re-add as was, as i'll look to find more concrete sources for the type of info that was there, as should have been the case on the original article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps I should have done that. Now that it's clear that the text isn't a copyvio, I don't see a problem with adding at again, as long as it's attributed correctly to the editor who added it to Skegness. KSFT ^(t|c) 18:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

01:18:07, 3 January 2018 review of submission by NitaGale1968

• NitaGale1968 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Robert Cruickshank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For the inline citations are you recommending seperating into a bibliography & patents sub-section & only citing articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by NitaGale1968 (talk • contribs)

@NitaGale1968: I didn't make any suggestion about the sections. You need to cite sources, including inline citations for some information. You also need to write neutrally. KSFT ^(t|c) 03:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For completing at least 100 reviews during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive please accept this Special Edition Barnstar. Thank you for helping out at New Page Patrol! There is still work to do to meet our long term goals, so I hope you will continue your great work. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello KSFT, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, March 2018

Bots Newsletter, March 2018

Greetings!

Here is the 5th issue of the Bots Newsletter (formerly the BAG Newletter). You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.

Highlights for this newsletter include:

ARBCOM

• Magioladitis 2 happened, leading to further restrictions on Magioladitis (decision, summary).
• Betacommand 3 was proposed to be amended to lift the indefinite ban on Δ, but was unsuccessful (decision).
• A motion concerning Crosswiki issues (mostly concerning Wikidata) was passed (see discussion).

BAG

• Hersfold was removed from the BAG due to long term inactivity.

BRFAs

We currently have 6 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing!

Discussions

While there were no large-scale bot-related discussion in the past few months, you can check WP:BOTN and WT:BOTPOL (and their corresponding archives) for smaller issues that came up.

New things

• WP:BOTDICT, a dictionary of common bot-related terms (see discussion).
• 6 inactive bots have been deflagged (see discussion).
• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey happened. Two bot-related proposal passed, #6 deploy Article Alerts to other languages and #10 Commons deletion notification bot, although other entries may affect bots as well.
• Category:Wikipedia bots and its subcategories has had some cleanup. Bot-related pages that were historically important but are no longer of interests can be found in Category:Wikipedia bots (historical)
• The edit summary limit has been increased to 1000 characters (see T6715). If a bot you operate relied on the old truncation limit (255 characters), please review/update your code, as overly long summaries can be disruptive/annoying. If you want to use extra characters to have more information in your edit summary, please do so intelligently.
• You will soon be able to ping users from the edit summary (see T188469). If you wish to use this feature in your bot, please do so intelligently.

Upcoming

• HTML Tidy will be phased out in June 2018, or possibly earlier. This may affect some bots (see FAQ).

Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 03:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

---

(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello KSFT, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

• Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

• While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

• The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello KSFT, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 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.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

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, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

First Edit Day

Hey, KSFT. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Kpgjhpjm (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday

Hey, KSFT. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! --JustBerry (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello KSFT, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

James Buckley Thorp

James Buckley Thorp page was redirected to the multi-million-pound company he founded. We have just completed a lecture about two very notable businessmen, one being James Buckley Thorp. As per my assignment, I had to upload the information for this page. I do not see why he is not considered notable. His clothing company is in over 100 locations across the UK and is soon entering America. He is a phenomenal man, and I loved listening to his story and compiling his history. Would you be able to explain to me how his notoriety doesn't meet your standard? Or point me to a place where this can be accessed so I can add this missing information. Also a finalist for entrepreneur of the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:8856:3200:28CE:23D5:773B:705E (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's general notability guideline requires several reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. None of the seven sources you cited meets these criteria. Two were interviews, and most of the rest had no information about him. The number of locations his company has is irrelevant for determining his notability.

Is this an assignment for a class you're in? Sometimes, teachers assign their classes to write Wikipedia articles without coordinating with Wikipedia or understanding our policies, and it doesn't turn out well. If that's the case here, would you mind either letting your teacher know (maybe by pointing them to this page) or sharing the name of your school and teacher so someone else can? KSFT ^(t|c) 17:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Flower Fifth Avenue Hospital

Hi, KSFT. I was wondering where the content for Flower-Fith Avenue Hospital went? I see the redirect to New York Medical College is back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrodriguezrentas (talk • contribs) 00:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jrodriguezrentas: I removed the content you added and reverted it to a redirect, as you seem to have noticed, because it seemed to have been copied from another website. This is not usually allowed on Wikipedia, because it's an infringement of copyright. KSFT ^(t|c) 00:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@KSFT: That content I wrote. If it too closes matches what is elsewhere on the Web, I can edit further. I'm trying to find the content that was there, and I don't see it in the page history.

@Jrodriguezrentas: The revisions were deleted as a copyright violation. Because of that, I can't see them anymore (I'm not an admin), but I believe that it was copied at least partly from this page. If you want to write a new article about the hospital, you should make sure that you write in your own words, and you should make sure that you have enough reliable sources to support what you write. You might want to use the articles for creation process, writing a draft first and then submitting it for review. KSFT ^(t|c) 01:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The rest of the story...

Before it was spam, it was a redirect. Look beyond the surface first impression to make sure you are actually making the correct response. Shenme (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I should have done that. I apologize. I also should have realized from its title that it should be a redirect. KSFT ^(t|c) 04:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Knight of the Black Rose

KSFT,

I'm new to Wikipedia. Could you please explain what you meant by "rv unsourced, likely non-notable cv to redirect: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/253540.Knight_of_the_Black_Rose"? Specifically rv and cv. Bruceleroy TRN (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bruceleroy TRN: Yeah, those are abbreviations you might see in edit summaries sometimes. rv is short for revert, and cv is short for coypright violation. I mentioned three problems with the article as it was: that you didn't cite any sources, that the subject didn't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and that the text was copied from another website, which is not allowed. I gave a URL of an external page with the same text it seemed to have been copied from. I would have tagged it for deletion had there not been a good target for a redirect. When there isn't an article on a subject, it's common to redirect the title to a related article, like, as in this case, the title of a book to an existing article on the series it's part of. KSFT ^(t|c) 19:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@KSFT:Thanks! I should have cited sources better. I'm still learning. I'm still a little confused about the notability guidelines. For instance this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_of_the_Dead_(novel), consists of basically plot summaries and 1 reference. So are the other articles concerning individual "ravenloft" articles. Are these acceptable or did I just pick a bad page to use as my template?Bruceleroy TRN (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Bill Clapp

Hi KSFT, thanks for your message regarding Bill Clapp's Wikipedia page. I feel that Mr. Clapp is notable enough (having founded multiple foundations in the Seattle area that contribute significantly within the global development space) to warrant an article on Wikipedia. I would appreciate any suggestions you might have for improving it. --Tylerroush (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tylerroush: I didn't evaluate his notability. The biggest problem with the article is that it's not written from a neutral point of view. Look for more independent sources, and try to avoid words that might introduce bias. I looked at the article again, and I changed my mind: I don't think it's bad enough that it should be speedily deleted, but I think it could be significantly improved. KSFT ^(t|c) 17:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@KSFT: I appreciate the feedback (and the stay of execution). I do see where it can be improved and will look into some revisions. Thank you. --Tylerroush (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tylerroush: I take back what I wrote above: The biggest problem with the article is that it's a copyright infringement. You need to write in your own words. Another editor noticed and tagged it, and it will be deleted soon. KSFT ^(t|c) 19:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@KSFT: I see that. I made extensive rewrites to bring the article up to code. Is there any chance you could take a look and move it out of the speedy deletion queue? --Tylerroush (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Mistake

This was a mistake - a valid redirect was vandalized, and you tagged it for deletion, instead of checking the history and restoring the redirect. No criticism intended, just mentioning it so you can check your process flow and avoid similar. —swpb^{T go beyond} 19:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, someone else mentioned that just above here. I apologize for the mistake. KSFT ^(t|c) 19:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Steading the State

Hi. Saw a problem at the RM you've closed at Steady State model. The original RM had the title in upper case, and that's how some editors commented on it. It was only later in the process that the nominator changed it to lower-case "state". See this n-gram, which shows the upper case use of the term is more prominent (and per Big Bang theory. Although the n-grams cut off in 2008, and the lower-case may now be the common name, may I suggest putting the upper-case back on the page title and ask the nominator or objectors for a new RM on the casing, to see what the consensus and academic consensus is. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

And this n-gram for specific wording "model". Randy Kryn (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I've opened a new RM to decide the case of the title. KSFT ^(t|c) 17:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. You're fast at this. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Editors are changing all the mentions on the page to lower-case. When the upper-or-lower-case RM went up the page should probably have been reverted back to the upper-case version because the original RM was in upper-case, was set up as deciding the question between 'model' and 'theory', and changed to a lower-case decision during the discussion and without consensus. This makes a difference if no consensus is deemed to have been reached in the casing RM, which hasn't occurred yet, but that would keep it at the good faith move to lower case that you made without noticing the switch. I'm going to move the lower-case changes back in the text, but will likely be reverted, so please keep a watch on it. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello KSFT, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

What's On

There should be no links to disambiguation pages, so now that you made What's On a dab page, would you please follow up and fix all the incoming links? (Dabsolver is helpful.) Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I missed a few pages, and I also missed that a couple more had multiple links. They're all fixed now, but there are two I'm not certain are supposed to go to What's On (Canadian TV program). KSFT ^(t|c) 05:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence! — Gorthian (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Mamamoo page.

Why did you added again that part on mmm page?

We already asked for it to be removed. Remove it again please. Viratvio (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Mamamoo redux

Requested full page protection. Hopefully, it won't get PP while that content is removed. Thanks for your hard work! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, will you answer my question?

Bots Newsletter, August 2018

Bots Newsletter, August 2018

Greetings!

Here is the 6th issue of the Bots Newsletter. You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.

Highlights for this newsletter include:

ARBCOM

• Nothing particular important happened. Those who care already know, those who don't know wouldn't care. The curious can dig ARBCOM archives themselves.

BAG

• There were no changes in BAG membership since the last Bots Newsletter. Headbomb went from semi-active to active.
• In the last 3 months, only 3 BAG members have closed requests - help is needed with the backlog.

BOTREQs and BRFAs

As of writing, we have...

• 24 active BOTREQs, please help if you can!
• 5 open BRFAs and 3 BRFAs in need of BAG attention (see live status).
• 54 approved bot tasks since the start of 2018. Of note, Community Tech bot 5 (the #10 Wish on the 2017 Community Survey) was approved to notify users concerning problematic images and files from Wikimedia Commons.

Also

• If you're a bot operator that can help with Tidy/Linter error cleanup (see discussion, discussion), please file a BRFA!
• 8 inactive bots have been deflagged (see discussion, discussion, discussion).

Discussions

These are some of the discussions that happened / are still happening since the last Bots Newsletter. Many are stale, but some are still active.

• Use of tags by bots – Exploring the use of a new 'bot' tag.
• Mass page moves – Bot policy question/clarification about mass moves.
• Creation of redirects – Bot policy question/clarification about the creation of redirects.
• Guidance on disruptive use of semi–automated tools? – Related to meatbots (see also MOS discussion, which resulted in small addition to MOS:VAR).
• Discussion concerning WP:BOTFLAG/WP:RC – A reminder that bots should use the bot flag when it makes sense to use it (see also VPT discussion and CREATEBOT update).
• Out of curiosity... (to all bot operators) – BotPasswords vs OAuth usage amongst bot operators.
• Introducing Toolhub – Toolhub is looking for feedback.

New things

• {{Automated tools}}, a new template linking to user-activated tools and scripts has been created. It can be used in articles previews, and can be placed on any non-mainspace page/template (e.g. {{Draft article}}) to provide convenient links to editors.
• AWB 5.10.0.0 is out, after nearly 20 months without updates. If you run an old version, you will be prompted to install the new version automatically. See the changelog for what's new. Note that the next version will require .NET Framework 4.5. Many thanks to Reedy and the AWB team.
• BotWatch, "a listing of editors that have made >2 edits per minute [without] a bot flag", is being developed by SQL (see discussion).
• Massive updates and improvements have been made to Citation bot in the past few months (see discussions, discussions, discussions). You can activate the bot here, amongst other methods.
• HTML Tidy has been phased out (see Tech News #28).
• {{Newbot}} has been reorganized a bit (diff). In particular, it links to previously approved BRFAs (see discussion).
• Wikipedia:Bots#See also has been reorganized a bit (diff).
• The bot dictionary has two new entries, context bot and context-sensitive edit.
• The bot request header has been updated to include better guidance (see discussion).
• The subcategories of Category:Wikipedia bot requests for approval have been sorted in a consistent manner to make past BRFAs easier to find.

Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 15:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

---

(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello KSFT, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

• The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

• There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

• A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

• Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
• If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
• Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
• The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
• The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget. In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions. MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues. User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page) User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50). User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you. User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion. User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello KSFT, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello KSFT,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, KSFT. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Hi KSFT,

Thanks for your help and I will definitely follow the guidelines to first Disclose the required info and refrain from editing myself and request an edit instead.

I edited today the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_modelling article to include Datamine Software, the company I actually work for, which is probably something I shouldn't have done. Probably the best would be "I work here, and it is not listed, should have been, please add to the list if you agree with me" and request the edit.

This said, it is a bit weird that there is a list of Software companies there, including competitors, and it really doesn't seem like it is that unbiased. Another thing is that several other companies have articles published and I find it unlikely that unbiased third party individuals are responsible for the articles. The company I work for is renowned for its geological modelling capabilities and it is a bit surprising that it would be left out on a list that also has its main competitors.

I was actually drafting something, definitely not for the purpose of advertisement, but for the purpose of providing information, trying to just relay information similarly to what we can find in some other pages. I think this industry is big enough to have people seeking info and they would like to find it in Wikipedia, but not big enough to have people writing articles on mining software companies.

If you check, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEOVIA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maptek

and what I am doing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Henrique.buchhorn/sandbox/Datamine_Software

I am definitely avoiding the use of expressions like "sophisticated" or "simplifying and accelerating routine tasks" like the Maptek article and adding external references as much as I can, not only from the company website.

Anyway, my question is, will this article be refused right out of the bat because I work for the company or if the conflict of interest is stated but the article is found to be impartial and purely informative, it can still be published?

Because I am a big supporter of Wikipedia and I will not willingly do anything that goes against any of the guidelines.

Your assistance will be much appreciated.

Cheers

Henrique.buchhorn (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Henrique.buchhorn: It looks like you've appropriately disclosed your conflict of interest on your userpage. Your draft shouldn't be declined only because of your conflict of interest, but it can be very difficult to write neutrally about your own company. Both of the articles you linked to look promotional, so you're right not to base yours on them. KSFT ^(t|c) 02:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello KSFT,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello KSFT,

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)

SPI clerk application

Hi KSFT, sorry this is out of the blue. We've done a less than stellar job of managing the SPI clerk applications, which is something I've been trying to work on. I've removed your application since it is fairly old, and you're less active these days. Feel free to reapply in the future if you're still interested :) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello KSFT,

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)

Heh

You literally edit conflicted me with that last addition, and about the same event too. Thanks for keeping it up to date. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for the information provided ! Rdalooz (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello KSFT,

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)

ReplyDraft:モヒガン族

The article had been tagged by another editor. I normally check the text anyway, and have a look at a Google translation if it's not in English. In this case I was in a bit of a rush and took the tag on trust; it's Sod's Law that the one time I do this that the article, whatever other failings it might have, probably isn't G11. My apologies and thanks for sorting it out, mea culpa, mea maximima culpa Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Lliswerry

Hi - why did you close the move request for this page after just 3 days?Pwimageglow (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pwimageglow: I closed it nearly two weeks after it had been relisted, because I didn't think anyone else would participate. I apologize, and I have reverted my close. KSFT ^(t|c) 21:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)