New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020Edit

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello SUM1,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Short descriptionsEdit

Why does Arthur Balfour get to be a Conservative in his short description, but Henry Campbell-Bannerman, H. H. Asquith, and David Lloyd George don't get to be Liberals in theirs? DuncanHill (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: No reason. I wasn't enforcing anything with my edits, I was just updating the existing descriptions with years. Go ahead and change it. In fact, if I'd had written them all from the ground up, I would've chosen "British [party] politician and Prime Minister from [year] to [year]". But it's too late now for all the work. The current format seemed established in the more recent articles. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks - I had a quick look at a few more and Prince Arthur does seem to be the odd one out. I think your suggestion of "British [party] politician and Prime Minister from [year] to [year]" would be better, but in the circumstances I'll just align the scented popinjay with his peers

Disambiguation link notification for February 22Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stromal cell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stroma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!Edit

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The 2019 Cure Award
In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

UnprotectedEdit

Hi,

I've acted on your request regarding Au5 since both the timescale and your request's details indicate there's a good chance that a new version would succeed. Best of luck editing, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Short descriptions and infoboxesEdit

Hi SUM1,

I see that you are adding a lot of short descriptions, which is valuable work. But I'd like you to be aware that a lot of infoboxes already generate short descriptions. If you add a {{short description}} template as well, then the article winds up with two short descriptions.

I don't know of any actual problem that that causes, but it doesn't seem good from a general software-hygiene standpoint. It's the kind of thing that tends to cause problems.

In articles with infoboxes, if the default short description is not to your liking, I recommend overriding it using the infobox's short_description parameter. --Trovatore (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Trovatore: I was already aware that {{Infobox settlement}} auto-generates short descriptions. I was following the method built into Galobtter's Shortdesc helper gadget, which provides an "Override" link when a template automatically generates a short description. I did not see that parameter on {{Infobox settlement}} (a small mention way down the page), and after looking I couldn't find an equivalent parameter on any other infobox or template that generates short descriptions. Additionally, I was following the practice of other people on for example London, New York City or Chicago. But I'll use this parameter on {{Infobox settlement}} in the future. Thanks for the notification. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
That parameter of short_description is mainly used for infoboxes that wrap infobox settlement. I don't think there's any issue with having two descriptions on a page (indeed, a parameter noreplace was added to the SHORTDESC magic word to make the infobox short description overridable by another short description up on the page). Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, I have my CSS set so that it shows the short descriptions, and I find it pretty annoying to see two short descriptions on the same article. Maybe it was a mistake to have the infobox template generate the short descriptions in the first place, but as matters stand, putting a {{short description}} template does not actually "override" the short description; it gives the articles two short descriptions, at least as viewed by a web user who has settings to show the short description. This is surely not the desired outcome. --Trovatore (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Statistical SignificanceEdit

Stop icon
Your recent editing history at Statistical significance shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. danielkueh (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

No edit warring, just 2 reverts. Though I can see why you yourself would like to believe I was going to continue reverting afterwards and warrant this template, given our past experience. Just like back then, I continue to not really understand your agitation or "dismay" at the simple idea of someone changing your edits. But, I don't wish to barge through that drama again just to get a minor fix through. You can keep your short description. It's only one in thousands. Please read the help page on short descriptions. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
You are confusing edit warring with the 3 revert rule. According to WP:EDITWAR, "an edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." Please LEARN the difference.
According to WP:BRD, if you were to make a bold edit, and I reverted it, the next step would be to discuss the issue and get consensus. I have explained this to you multiple times in the past. Yet, for some reason, I can't seem to get through to you. Rather than discuss on the talk page and wait for consensus, you immediately revert my edits again and left snide remark. If you had read WP:BRD, you would know that "restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive. These so-called "re-reverts" are uncollaborative and could incur sanctions such as a block." Do you see why someone might be "dismayed" by your unwillingness to follow process? danielkueh (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if this is something personal but you reverting my edits without engaging in discussion as outlined in WP:BRD is getting really tiring. Anything you want to get off your chest? danielkueh (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Again, I'm very confused. I've only reverted your edits twice in history that I can recall. It wasn't even a revert that allowed you to already remark "Sheesh." and "WP:BRD" in your edit summary – it was a grammatical fix of your version of the short description. Only after this did I technically revert your reversion of this fix. So technically you have two reverts, and I have one. But, like I said, I'm not going to get involved in this drama all over again over something minor. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Don't you play this childish game with me about being "confused" or debating whether this is just one or two reverts. A revert is a revert, regardless of your intentions. You clearly reverted my edits twice and you even have the audacity to cite 3rr. Just who do you think you're talking to? I have been editing Wikipedia for over fourteen years. And when it comes to WP:BRD, 99.9% of the editors here understand and follow this process (WP:BRD). Those who don't are usually trolls, vandals, or sock-puppets. Is that what you are? I suggest you think carefully about what it is you hope to accomplish by being disruptive, which again, is REALLY irritating. Seriously. Just STOP IT. OK!?!?!?!? Comprende?!?!?! danielkueh (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:Civility. You are lucky I don't care for this issue as much as you seem to, which says something being the recipient of an edit war warning rather than the donor. But keep in mind that this could come back in the future if someone does take you to the noticeboard. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Okamoto syndromeEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Okamoto syndrome you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Editoneer -- Editoneer (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Okamoto syndromeEdit

The article Okamoto syndrome you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Okamoto syndrome for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Editoneer -- Editoneer (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

ArchitectEdit

You have just changed the short description

Overseeing the constructtion of a building is not the same thing as reviewing the construction of a building.

The first, "overseeing", is an ongoing process, while "reviewing" is something that can only happen when the process is complete, and suggests that the architect ha nothing to do with the business of construction.

You should change this back to the way it was.

Amandajm (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Amandajm: I hardly remembered making that edit. It was passing cleanup work: I truncated the description slightly, fixed its grammar and worded it in line with the lead. If you disagree with the wording, you are free to go ahead and change it, but make sure you change it both in the lead and the short description. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
::Thank you for your response. Amandajm (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The last comment in the Inadequate lead discussionEdit

Just to share with you that, I think, this last comment is based on a misunderstanding. The guy seems to think that the title "Lead to short" is seen by the editors that need to be flagged by the template. I also thought so and I first opposed the proposal because of that. Later, I realized that it was seen internally only and it made me change my position.

However, I still think that the title that is used internally when we search templates is very important and that "Lead too short" is confusing for many. It may seem like an innocent title, but it makes the learning curve to understand what each template says steeper. It would help minimize the confusion if the title would match more directly the actual content of the template. It's important, because "short" is often not at all seen as the issue, even though the lead fails to cover key points. It was my very innocent experience. I was looking for a template that says "key points are missing" or something similar. When I saw "Lead too short", I discarded the template, because it was not the issue. I even thought "short is good." Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Your question at the Help deskEdit

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello SUM1. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
Message added on 12:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

Template editor grantedEdit

Wikipedia Template editor icon (1).svg

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. 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.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

Happy template editing! Primefac (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CDK13-related disorderEdit

The article CDK13-related disorder you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:CDK13-related disorder for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canada Hky -- Canada Hky (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Desktop improvements prototypeEdit

Hello, SUM1!

Thanks for taking the time to participate in the user feedback round for our desktop improvements prototype. This feedback is super valuable to us and is currently being used to determine our next steps. We have published a report gathering the main takeaways from the feedback and highlighting the changes we’ll make based on this feedback. Please take a look and give us your thoughts on the talk page of the report. To learn more about the project overall and the other features we’re planning on building in the future, check out the main project page.

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for all you do :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Okamoto syndrome/GA1Edit

SUM1, it has been over two weeks since you were pinged from this review about issues that need addressing. Do you plan to return to this nomination to work on the issues raised, or would you rather that the review be closed? Please let us know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

SUM1, you received a response about two weeks ago with advice on how to handle the article lede issues. Please let us hear back from you soon. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

CourtesyEdit

I mentioned you in my arbcom evidence here. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Picture of clubbed thumbEdit

Thank you for adding the picture that I took File:Brachydaktylie_Typ_D_einseitig.jpg into Brachydactyly type D. Since that was done by you on August 17th last year I was surprised that is was reversed recently with the argument "No reason given for removal". I think that that picture is better, but maybe I'm not neutral here. Schrauber5 (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Similar username alertEdit

Hey there, just wanted to check in and see if you know anything about this user: Saum1. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Okamoto syndromeEdit

The article Okamoto syndrome you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Okamoto syndrome for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Editoneer -- Editoneer (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)