User talk:Slywriter/Archive 2

Review for Draft:Aiwa

Hi Slywriter, thanks for taking time to review my article that was unfortunately once again rejected. I do not understand why as the sources provided meet different criterias from the WP:MUSIC : The Guardian wrote a review totaly independant from the band, it is not an interview with the band talking about itself but an independant source. Same thing with The Observer Music Monthly that wrote a review by a very famous British journalist Charlie_Gillett, without any personal connection with the band... Do you read the articles provided as sources are some medias just prohibited? I just want to know so that I can improve my contributions in the future. Naufalle (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2022 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naufalle (talk • contribs)

Naufalle, Other than the Guardian which is good but not great, all of your sources are unusable. No idea which is Observer as none of the references labeled. Allmusic, discogs, festival pages are generally unusable for establishing notability. Need in-depth independent coverage discussing the subject. Slywriter (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Fixing ping, NaufalleSlywriter (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Slywriter for getting back to me so speed. Does that mean that it's the references more than the external links that create the problem? The Observer Music Monthly was a magazine edited by the Guardian that stopped in 2009. It was a reference and a UK chart untill then. The first two albums were in the top 10 when published. This is why I was surprised to see it didn't count. Can I resubmit this article if references at the end of it are deleted?

Thanks again for your help !

Naufalle (talk 16:45, 11 February 2022 (CET)

Naufalle, I see the issue now. Those external links need to become sources that support content, not be buried in external linksSlywriter (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Request on 18:27:26, 11 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Merely another passerby

• Merely another passerby (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Template:British Prime Minister's Official Spokesperson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, forgive me for the direct message, but it's regarding the decline of the following template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Template:British_Prime_Minister%27s_Official_Spokesperson

Reason stated is No clear reason where this would be a useful template

These Navigational boxes are used for quick navigation between Officeholders. Usually placed at the bottom of an article, they provide an overall view of the holders of an office of state and can be useful in highlighting periods when an officeholder had multiple discrete tenures or the office was vacant. (In that respect they are better than succession boxes).

This particular one is the last of a series of Navigational boxes for the British Prime Minister's office...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Downing_Street

The others are all listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_Kingdom_ministerial_office_navigational_boxes

If there is a particular reason you feel this one is less useful than any of the others would you mind elaborating so it can be addressed.

many thanks.

Merely another passerby (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Merely another passerby, looking again, think I missed something (aka the complete template and not just a title bar) while viewing on cellphone. Just re-submit and drop me a note here and ill approve. Slywriter (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response ;) Slywriter. Template has now been resubmitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merely another passerby (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Request on 12:29:13, 12 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Desertambition

• Desertambition (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Annetta Laufer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Slywriter, I was wondering how I can improve this article on a Doctor Who director. I noticed that some other Doctor Who directors did not have pages created either. Another Doctor Who director, Jamie Magnus Stone, has an article and the sources on it seem to be on par with, if not worse, than the ones I provided. If Annetta Laufer does not meet notability criteria even with all sources provided, would it be appropriate to nominate Jamie Magnus Stone for deletion?

Desertambition (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Review for Draft:Sherelle

Hi there!

I saw that you left a review & rejection on Draft:Sherelle on the grounds of WP:NOTABILITY. I've included in citations for the article a feature story on the artist from The Guardian [1], a profile from DJMag [2], and profile (a cover story) from Attitude (magazine) [3]. I've also cited multiple reviews of her work from Pitchfork (website) [4] and AllMusic [5], and specific coverage about her and the labels she's worked on, including a profile on her work with Beautiful [6]. These citations do show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, to my view. I've also explicitly outlined the reasons she is notable in the article lead: her advocacy work and her work in music.

Do you have recommendations for how to make this more explicit or improve the use of citations? Thank in advance, and thank you for the review! SiliconRed (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

SiliconRed, AllMusic isn't a source, Guardian is an interview and the rest of the sources appear to be interviews or press releases. The subject does not appear to meet any of the guidelines in WP:NMUSIC nor qualify under WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The easiest way to meet these standards is find WP:THREE independent secondary reliable sources that discuss the subject in-depth and are not an interview, press release or otherwise connected to the subject. Slywriter (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian article (though it's labelled as an interview for whatever reason), DJMag story, and Attitude stories are all features, not interviews or press releases -- not clear to me that you've read them? They're articles which explicitly cover the subject -- representing three, strong, secondary RS. I'd say this person qualifies under WP:BIO: Notability is demonstrated through her music contributions but also through her activism and industry work, and press coverage covers this thoroughly. I've used some press releases as minor citations to get a better handle on dates and timelines for her work, and reviews to compile a critical reaction. I'll look into more cites, but generally I'd argue the foundation for WP:NOTABILITY is pretty clear. SiliconRed (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Added in an couple more cites: A feature on Sherelle from Timeout [7] and a feature on Sherelle from Mixmag [8]. SiliconRed (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Siliconred,Took another look and one of the biggest problems is that everything is an interview except Pitchfork (one other review with dozens of DJs is also independent but so short that it's a passing mention). Interviews are generally considered WP:ABOUTSELF, so they can't be used to support a line like "She is also known for her advocacy for black and LGBT musicians through her label, Beautiful" as no one independent of her is actually saying she is am activist. So doesn't meet the known for activism outside her field. They also generally do not contribute to notability, though admittedly getting the cover for an interview has some weight.

Subject is on the cusp of notability and this could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. If one or two additional articles can be found that are clearly independent of the subject, good chance of approval.Slywriter (talk) 13:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I'll keep adding citations and make sure support is reflected properly, then resubmit. Thanks for the commentary! SiliconRed (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey there, I've just resubmitted the article at Draft:Sherelle. I've added 6 additional citations: Features from Timeout [9], Mixmag [10], and Resident Advisor [11], a feature specifically on her style and use of genre from Mixmag [12], a news story from Mixmag [13], and reference to her winning British DJ of the year from DJ Mag [14]. I've also updated the wording according to your suggestions and added more content to the article. I recognize that several cites here include interviews, but they're all significant, written into feature articles ABOUT the artist, not just in-line interviews with her. There's a clear difference there, I'd encourage you to look closely at the contents of these cites. The suggestion of WP:TOOSOON might hold some ground because the artist isn't prolific in terms of published releases, but the sheer volume of feature stories about her and coverage of her work as a DJ would suggest that there is plenty of interest beyond just her published discography -- this is made clear in the bio I've written. For what it's worth, I disagree with the suggestion that any article that even uses an interview falls into the bucket of WP:ABOUTSELF: None of the cites I've used are from self-published [or] questionable sources. (and if you feel some are, please let me know which). Thanks! SiliconRed (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Learning a bit here myself. WP:Interviews is an interesting essay which argues that a multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability and if the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent, contributes to the claim that the subject has met the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline. To my reading the feature stories I'm using as citations would lean more into this category, none of them are softball, all of them come from significant and known WP:RS. I can't find specific guidance on "feature stories" but I assume this essay can help guide that thought process. To this end there's not much ambiguity to me that the subject of this article would qualify with WP:MUSICBIO under its first clause: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. Appreciate any input you have as well. SiliconRed (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

SiliconRed, I'll leave it for another reviewer as I do not see the interviews as meeting secondary independent reliable sourcing.

They are 95% the subject's own words and seek to promote the subject.

WP:Interviews is an essay, so it's primarily one or more editor's opinions on interviews, rather than reflective of community consensus.Slywriter (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I know it's an essay, but essays do generally provide good guidance. Also, few to none of the articles are 95% of the subject's words... Did you look at the articles? Mixmag [15], Timeout [16], DJMag [17], Guardian [18], Attitude [19] are all substantial articles, 100% prose, solely about the subject. How are these not considered WP:THREE? SiliconRed (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Siliconred, see all the quotation marks in MixMag and Guardian? Those are interviews, telling her story in her words. Same with Timeout. DJMag is the only one that meets significant coverage, as it at least appears the writer has done their own reportingSlywriter (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the question marks -- all of these articles are written in prose? There are quotes, because feature stories often interview their subjects. Also worth noting the Resident Advisor [20] feature. Even discounting Guardian,Mixmag,Timeout, there are >=3 clear WP:RS here. Not to mention the other coverage I've cited. SiliconRed (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Siliconred, Another reviewer may have a different opinion, they may be listed as featured stories but they are primarily interviews with the subject, providing little to no independent coverage and containining significant quoted material from the subject. Repeating yourself that you believe otherwise will not change my opinion of the sources.Slywriter (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for your help! Hopefully I am not being too much of a PITA, just doing my best here. Cheers 🍻 SiliconRed (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Nolan Ellison draft article

Hi, Slywriter.

I've updated the references. Could you review again?

Thanks for your consideration.

DtheH01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DtheH01 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

DtheH01, There are still a few lines (Olympic tryout and Phd) that are unsourced. Be best to find sources or remove them. Slywriter (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Slywriter.

Thanks for the feedback. I've added several additional references. Could you review again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DtheH01 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

DtheH01, I've approved. Notability is a bit borderline and local, but figure has 51% chance of surviving AfD. Still a few uncited passages, particularly about brother that should be sourced or removed.Slywriter (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll add a reference on the brother and double-check for the additional uncited passages. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DtheH01 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Recently rejected article

Thank you for reviewing my article on George Ramsay Beaton. I have a couple of questions about the sources, if you have time to answer them.

You noted that the link to the American Bar Association's words about George Beaton was broken.

Although this was not the case when I first retrieved the ABA "About the Author" article featuring George Beaton, you are right--it is certainly true now. The link does not go there.

The page still exists--when I went to the American Bar Association, Shop ABA, Search ABA Products, and keyed in the title of the book in the Search bar (Remaking Law Firms), the page showing the book appeared. Then, when I scrolled down and clicked on "About the Author" the page appeared, with the quotation about George Beaton being widely regarded as an independent authority on professional services, and law firms in particular.

However, when I copied the URL for that page and tried it on Google, the search engine could not find the page.

The pages does exist, though.

What can I do to cite this important source of the ABA since the link does not yield up a page that is, nevertheless, on the ABA website?

I was also wondering if the biographical article about George Beaton by David Parnell, published in Forbes, is not considered a viable, independent, secondary source?

Any advice you can give on the above-named issues would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

JMSOtis (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

JMSOtis, Found the ABA pdf and its not useable for Wikipedia. The About Author is self-submitted promotional material. Parnell is a Forbes contributor so not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Same for Mark Cohen. After that you have a lot of sources that are not independent of the subject. Rule of WP:THREE is a general guideline to find three, independent reliable secondary sources.Slywriter (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate this detailed feedback. This is very, very helpful.

Sincerely,

JMSOtis (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Request on 19:49:33, 16 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Godoy.website

• Godoy.website (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tania Franco Klein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The content was updated and is ready for resubmission.

Godoy.website (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Godoy.website, I have restored the AfC template, which should not be removed, and you can press submit to place the draft in the queue.Slywriter (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your over 5000 edits for the last 3 years including software and FOSS topics! I saw already so many contributions from you that recognize your name. GavriilaDmitriev (talk • they/them) 05:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

PH-Tree draft feedback

Hi Slywriter, thanks for reviewing my draft article on Draft:PH-tree. I made some improvements but there are some open questions.

I understand there were several issues.

1. "This seems to be almost an ad trying to justify the subject rather than an encyclopedic summary"
2. "Lacking in-line citations"
3. "notability not clear"
4. "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article."

Regarding

1. Could you tell me where it reads like an ad? I can't quite see it..?
2. I made several changes, I hope the additional citations help. Please let me know if it should be more/less.
3. The original paper has 50+ citations (on Google Scholar). I put 11 of these into the Draft, I think neither of them is trivial. They are all from independent authors (9 different authors), they are all peer reviewed (as far as I can tell) and they all have at least a discussion or even a PH-tree performance analysis as reference for their own research. I did remove one citation of a master thesis, which I think doesn't qualify. Is there something else needed?
4. From the linked website: "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic". Could you point out where this is the case? I am happy to improve the article.

Best, TilmannZ (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

TilmannZ, the draft reads like an instruction manual/brochure. While numerous papers are cited, there are large sections of the draft that are unsourced while discussing the structure and function of the tree. This comes across as WP:OR, possibly WP:UNDUE and gives impression of editing for promotional purposes since little current real world application is shown. At the same time, you have this line hanging at the end with numerous sources "The PH-tree is often used as a baseline for performance analysis" and yet no discussion of what those sources say. WP:REFBOMB discourages this and more importantly, seems like relevant content that should be in the article.Slywriter (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, thanks again for the feedback. I tried to improve the article by adding more inline citations, removing the WP:REFBOMB, removing the unsourced section "Disadvantages" and attempting more neutral wording.

Please note that almost everything the in the article can be backed up by references but I decided to reference the relevant research at most once or twice per section, I think putting a reference after every sentence would be overkill (can can do it though if you want).

The only sections that have unsourced content are "Lossy Conversion" and "Hyperboxes as keys". I have them in the article because they explain some obvious question that may arise to a reader and explain how implementations solve these problems (I don't think citing implementations is recommended, or is it?). I think these explanations are useful enough that they deserve being mentioned, but they are also simple enough that experienced professionals will figure it out themselves in under an hour or so (especially the second one) or by looking at the source code. I could also integrate them into the other sections if that helps? Let me know if I should remove them.

Regarding "manual/brochure": I tried to follow the style of articles on other spatial indexes: R-tree, Bounding interval hierarchy, k-d tree, quadtree, etc. All of these are effectively "brochures" describing the features of the algorithm followed by a "manual" describing the algorithm and how it can be implemented. Maybe I misunderstand your point?

Please let me know how to proceed. Thanks, TilmannZ (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

TilmannZ, I'll take a look shortly though all 4 examples are actually poorly cited articles as far as Wikipedia is concerned. WP:PRIMARY shows where you can use primary sources. Wikipedia is about verifiability, so picking when to use them isn't really ideal. One source can support a paragraph or multiple but a reader should not be left guessing where a line is sourced from.Slywriter (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, if it helps, I found an article with FA quality rating that has a somewhat similar topic: Binary_search_algorithm

Slywriter it may also be worth talking to "Rusalkii", I think he/she was pretty much ready to accept the article when I hit "Resubmit" (assuming it would be reassigned to him) and was assigned a new reviewer, see talk here: [21] TilmannZ (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

TilmannZ, not locked to a reviewer and can press re-submit at any time. Slywriter (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, just double checking, I am just waiting for you to come back to me, right? (you wrote "I'll take a look shortly"). Also, to avoid any misunderstanding, I had Rusalkii as reviewer before I erroneously clicked "resubmit" and got another reviewer (you). I tried to make the best of my mistake, for article quality, two reviewers are probably better than one, so I try to take both your concerns into account. Since you two appear two have slightly different opinions I thought I suggest you talk to him directly. Please let me know whether you just need a bit more time or what else I can do to help.TilmannZ (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

TilmannZ, Sections being unsourced remains a concern for me. I don't see complex math as WP:SKYISBLUE and a source should support every section.

If another reviewer is willing to approve, then press re-submit and notify them. Slywriter (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter I removed the "Lossy conversion" section (it had no sources). I did find and add some sources for the "Hyperboxes as keys" section. I think everything else is sourced now. Does this help resolving your concerns?TilmannZ (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

TilmannZ, to better highlight my concerns, I have added citation needed tags. Also External links should not be in article, look at my edit comment, should be only one I left an edit summary.Slywriter (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, thanks, that was very helpful. I found some more unsourced content and removed it. I rephrased some parts (especially the "Node representation" section), because I think the references would have been WP:SKYISBLUE for a trained computer scientist, which also means I don't actually need to explain it (it is all available in the linked Dynamic_array#Performance.

There are still three "citation needed" left though, they are all unsourced, but they are simply "examples" of the preceeding theoretic description:

• For Draft:PH-tree#1D_example and Draft:PH-tree#2D_example I could theoretically move them into the caption of the adjacent diagrams, but I feel this would overload the diagrams' captions with too much text.
• Regarding the trailing sentence in Draft:PH-tree#Lossless_conversion: I inserted a reference earlier in the paragraph, but the example has no source. I could simply remove it?

Thanks again, do you have any suggestions how I can best deal with these examples? TilmannZ (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

TilmannZ, eh think we are past better than 50% chance of surviving a deletion discussion, so I'd say submit and the various gnomes and project folk will come along and see what they think once its in mainspace. Personally, I don't find "examples" to be sky is blue and think they come too close to WP:OR but it's non-controversial material, so no reason to hold up further.Slywriter (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter Thanks, let's see what the others say :-). I am still unsure about how the process works. How do I submit it to mainspace? It is not the "Resubmit" button (I think that just calls another reviewer), or is it? Is there documentation on how this works? TilmannZ (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

TilmannZ, yeah press it and then leave me a message so I know its back in the queue to approve. Slywriter (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter I just resubmitted it. Thanks! TilmannZ (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

TilmannZ, Accepted. Good luck.Slywriter (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Request on 12:42:01, 27 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by ברטוביניו

• ברטוביניו (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gal Yosef (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I saw you declined my draft again but I cannot understand how can you write :No attempt at improvement. No indication of independent secondary sources" when I added sources as I was requested and said I will. Please, this has been going on too long, Gal Yosef is a world known artisit and it seems there is some agenda against approving him when he clearly deserves an article. Can you please help? ברטוביניו (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

ברטוביניו (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

ברטוביניו, you added a short descriptionand resubmitted. That is no attempt at improving the article. And cut the nonsense of some agenda, continuing down that path will lead to you being reported and possibly restricted from editing. Spend your energy to fix the article in accordance with Wikipedia policies or accept that your client is not notable under Wikipedia guidelines.Slywriter (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Alex_Crockford_(Coach)

Hi Slywriter! Thanks so much for your feedback on my draft. I've made some edits, does this read better now please and less like an advertisement?

Regarding the need for significant coverage, I've added some additional references. There are MANY more available, but from less reliable sources (such as the Daily Mail etc). Should I still include these where they are not the source of the facts included in the article, but are being referred to in and of themselves? (e.g "he has appeared in the Daily Mail").

Any other feedback to help make it ready to publish would be greatly appreciated, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisRSlade (talk • contribs) 23:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

ChrisRSlade, Daily Mail is never an acceptable source on Wikipedia. More fundamentally, you have large sections unsourced. As this is a WP:BLP, every statement should be sourced. And MANY sources is a subjective opinion as if they are low-quality sources, press releases, or otherwise connected to the subject they will not contribute to notability.Slywriter (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Jews in Hull

Thank you for your application and diligence. I'm sure you've perused the Talk page and saw that I tried to advise of WP BLOAT and many other aspects includng AGF nearly a year ago; I was viciously attacked - four attacks, actually, over the course of two days, at two third-party User Talk pages, so I had to withdraw, as newbie prevails over all. Sanctioned by an admin's throwaway remark, the bloating has continued for a year.

In this change, you used a keyword "realtor"; I recognised your allusion (realtor is not used in England), as I added the ref to cite that it was a former synagogue, turned into multi-occupancy commercial office space. It was deleted by the article author/owner, I re-added it and has endured until now; so this is just to clarify that it was not he who added it. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Decision Education Foundation

Hello Slywriter,

Thank you for your help sorting out this article. Since you last provided feedback, I've added several citations from books (Hat tip to you for your suggestion to search Google books, Google News and Google Scholar!). Those suggestions also led me to find some other citations, remove duplicates and refine the text of the article by deleting some irrelevant content.

Thanks again for investing your efforts to make this a better article. Would you please be so kind as to take a look at the revised version? I believe it's ready for publication. Any further help you can offer will be more than welcome.

Tonypray (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Pytest

Hi @Slywriter: thanks for taking the time to review Draft:Pytest. I've read your comment and want to know more about the specific ways of improvement. Since pytest is the most popular testing framework in Python, I do think it's worth creating a Wikipedia aritcle for. Currently there are five independent sources cited: two published books, one article from the developers at DropBox, one from Real Python, another from Python Insight. The other two are primary sources from the pytest official documentation.

There are more independent sources that cover pytest. But I want to know exatly which direction I should make the article go before I proceed. Could you be a little more specific? Thomas Meng (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Slywriter, I added a few more sources including two more published books expaining pytest (now we have four published books). The article can still be improved further in my opinion, but could you check whether it's good for passing AfC now? I've resubmitted it for review, and any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks. Thomas Meng (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Atomic Habits

Thanks for reviewing this draft. There is a bug which is preventing the url from showing up in the copyvio decline tag. Are you able, please, to go back and re-enter it? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Found it! Cleaned it down, and requested CV-revdel Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

TimTrent, Should I leave a comment or talk page message as well when dealing with copyvio drafts?Slywriter (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a set of ideal things to do. Niot everyone does all of them, and it is not properly stated anywhere that I have found. I'm pinging Primefac because they drew a lot of attention to it on WT:AFC right near the foot of the page:

• Identify the source of the copyvio.
• Decline citing the copyvio as the reason. Consider whether CSD is required. If so this is the end of the process (it may be a good aide memoire while the bug (see below in blue) is still affecting the script)to add the copyright url to an AFC comment, good call)
• Physically remove the copyvio by either:

• rewriting it (we can do this)
• redacting it. I often make it very obvious with a statement in each location that I have done so

• Ask for a cv-revdel. There is a gizmo I have in my More tab that makes this easy, but I forget where I got it from
• in your Decline you will see "cv". Once you are sure it has been cleaned, alter this to "cv-cleaned"

All the foregoing is for normal times. We have a bug inthe AFCH script that fails to write the parameter |details= or |details2= (depends on which decline reason comes first). Please go the extra mile and add the url (absent from the decline template) eg "|details2=foo-bar.com"

There, I think I got it all. I learned a lot of this while hunting down those that had exasperated Primefac, and I trust them to correct me (Please amend that stuff above, Primefac, formal permission given). If I have it right please feel free to edit and promulgate. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The gizmo is User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel, which makes it easier to add a {{revdel}} request. Otherwise looks good. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Vladimir Shilstev

Hi, Slywriter! I have submitted wiki article on Prof. Vladimir Shiltsev Submission declined on 10 March 2022 by Slywriter (talk). Requests are: a) Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. b) Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added Editorial Comment was: Basically a resume. Slywriter (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC) I have read and got valuable insights from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) Prof.Shiltsev obviously satisfies Criterion 1 "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." - with highly cited works -eg in Reviews of Modern Physics, “pioneered or developed a significant new concept”, and several national and intl awards; Criterion 2 “The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.” – with 5 such awards; Criterion 3 “The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE). “ – he’s Fellow of at least three IEEE, AAAS and APS; Criterion 5 “The person has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)” – he’s a Distinguished Scientist at Fermilab. So, I decided to modify the article, reduce its length, concentrate on the key notability elements as advised by Wikipedia, and provide more verifiable, independent sources. I have also taken as examples two excellent Wiki articles on other famous accelerator physicists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekazi_Mtingwa and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Sands Please, consider and advise on my resubmission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vovatol (talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Article for deletion - Cadet Wing Director of Operations

Hi Slywriter! You helped me get an article published last year and I was wondering if you could take a look at the one I have recently submitted for review to see if it is eligible or how it can be made eligible. I hope you're well. Thanks, Venus.

Draft:Salvatore Ambrosini

Hi, I read the warning you added to the entry Draft:Salvatore Ambrosini and I think it is nonsense, because the entry Maurizio Merluzzo, like other voices, has this reference... (Of course I am referring to the question of the IMDb profile) Nonna Angelina (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft: BADVOID

Hi, thank you for fixing up and helping with the Draft:BADVOID article.

I appreciate the help.

Please let me know if you think there is anything else that needs fixing.

GenesisGSE (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Russian cruiser Moskva, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Drmies, excuse me? So speculation from political leaders is now valid content? cool. And a reason was given.Slywriter (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a nice loaded question. You didn't give a valid reason, and I explained other difficulties on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Paul Henteleff

Regarding your comment that the author is "using palliative care sources to buff up the article without clear connection to subject," could you identify which listed sources do not have a clear connection to the subject? Is there a way to reference articles that makes the connection clearer? E.g. adding page numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E4E5:F00:852:2B9C:3839:5720 (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Simple. Which sources actually discuss the subject of the article? Many of the sources are on the topic of palliative care and make no mention of the subject.Slywriter (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, every source mentions Paul Henteleff and many of them are mainly about him. Can you point to a specific source that does not mention his work?2001:8003:E4E5:F00:E8E3:E95C:8011:1E2B (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Article on Lemuria

I saw that you removed some of the content that had been added to the article on Lemuria by a student in a course I am teaching called "Archaeological Myths and Realities." I think the student was not appropriately clear in discussing the mythology of Lemuria versus the scientific reality of Lemuria, presenting some material in a way that made it appear to be fact when it was not. I put some comments on the talk page for the article and would like to explore the possibility of editing the article in such a way that it include some content on the esoteric mythology of Lemuria. This would be appropriate given the sidebar for Theosophy, which makes it clear that this article has ties to occult beliefs. Let me know what you think. Hoopes (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Hoopes, I think the material could work covering its mythology. The concept seems due. On the edit, it was written a little too real and they had been previously reverted by another editor and re-added the material without comment. The second edit, paleo place, seems to be definiton of paleo place with unclear connection to Lemuria, though I suspect the source does explain Lemuria in that context with more information than was provided. Though same issue of presenting the material as fact in wikivoice.Slywriter (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, I completely agree. The idea of a "paleo place" is problematic for me simply because that's not a well-known concept. Furthermore, Lemuria is an imaginary (or at best hypothetical) place, not a real one that once existed. What makes things complicated is that there is a separate article for Lemuria in popular culture that I think should be merged with the Lemuria article. The content that was added, removed, and re-added without comment is material that may be better suited--with rewrites--for that other article. There needs to be a clear distinction between Lemuria as a 19th-century scientific hypothesis (albeit disproved) and as an imaginary place in Theosophical, New Age, comic book, and other contexts. Hoopes (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

V.Smile article

I noticed that you've removed the games list among other things off of the V.Smile article on this site. This edit has caused the article to be less useful as you have also removed other info. If you don't remember, here's the edit of yours here. V.Smile Lorenzsandi (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, completely unreferenced. As is most of the article, which comes across as a promotional piece not an encyclopedia article.Slywriter (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Palatine Lodge No. 97

Thanks for you review Slywriter and comments. Regarding my submission not being adequately supported by reliable sources. The source proving the existence of Palatine Lodge No 97 and its history, i.e., warrant dates, the Lodge Numbers, the places the Lodge met is supported by (ref 3) Lane’s Masonic Records, held at the Museum of Freemasonry and Published by The Digital Humanities Institute, University of Sheffield, England. The Museum of Freemasonry (ref wiki) is fully accredited by the UK Arts Council. Note, I’ve updated the Lane’s link to add the Publisher to clarify the credibility of this source. Palatine Lodge No 97 is very fortunate, it being one of very few Masonic Lodges in the world to have records dating back to 1757, in the form of written minutes and written history books etc. To make this rich history more accessible and to aid future researchers we digitised many pages from our old history books, compiled them, and published them on our official website. These ancient documents can be viewed, in person, but the next best is to have electronic access and the reason for me referencing them in my article. With regards to Notable members, given the nature of the organisation at that time, the only sources of proof that a person was a member of a Lodge, or indeed a Freemason, is by referencing old Lodge membership registers and documents like ours. Alternatively, Lodge membership records dating back to 1751 are held at the United Grand Lodge of England (Freemasons Hall) and can be accessed via Ancestry.co.uk. As this is a subscription service, I didn’t think it was advisable to use as a reference. Am I correct? I’m of the opinion that providing references to our notable ancient members will be invaluable to future researchers and should feature in my article. For example, there are few sources where a researcher could find out that John George Lambton (1792-1840), 1st Earl of Durham, was a Freemason and member of Palatine Lodge No 97, Sunderland. So, to conclude, I believe that Palatine Lodge No 97, with its long and rich history, should be published in Wikipedia. Could you please review my comments and provide further guidance, where necessary. Thanks again for your assistance. Stev201961 (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC) Stev201961 (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Stev201961, existence is not notability. And all of your sources are connected to the Masons. Wikipedia requires independent, secondary sources to establish notability.Slywriter (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, please read WP:COI and make the proper declarations. Continuing to edit the subject without doing so is a violation of Wikipedia policies.Slywriter (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Please note my response, thanks Stev201961 (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again for your response but obviously I am disappointed.

Firstly, there is no COI. I am purely stating facts which are supported by historical evidence.

As a new author, to ensure I followed the guidelines and format, I based my article on a similar wiki article published for Phoenix Lodge. Pheonix, like Palatine, is also a very old Lodge in Sunderland, England.

The Pheonix article has fewer, but similar Masonic references. But, unlike my article, it does not reference an independent source, i.e., the Lane’s records, held in the Digital Humanities Institute at the University of Sheffield, England.

Note, I’ve also added a reference to an article published in the Sunderland Echo and Shipping Journal, titled A City Shaped By Masons, 6 May 2009, as a further independent source.

So, as the main body of my article follows the same logic as the Pheonix article, with enhanced referencing, it should be published.

If the issue is the section titled Notable Members, then if this is preventing publication then reluctantly, I’ll remove it.

However, the references and links I’ve used in the Notable Members section are very similar in nature (i.e. Masonic) to those used throughout the wiki published article titled ‘List of Freemasons’.

So, if judged on an equal basis then this section should also be published. But, if necessary, I will remove it.

I whole heartedly support the requirement to establish notability and believe, for the main body of the article, that I have met the independent source requirements with my references to the University of Sheffield’s records, the Beamish Hall Museum article (ref the section titled THE BEAMISH HALL, paragraph 3, starting line 7) and the additional Sunderland Echo article.

Also, the Masonic references I’ve used are no different to references used on other wiki pages.

So, I hope you’ll agree that if the same logic, used elsewhere in Wikipedia, is applied then I meet the requirements for publication.

Thanks again, Stev201961 (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Stev201961,You stated our history. So to claim you have no conflict is disingenuous. Until you clarify your relationship with the Lodge, there will be no further discussion between us. You are welcome to visit WP:AFCHD for an alternative opinionSlywriter (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid argument on wikipedia.Slywriter (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter, since we last talked, I’ve worked extensively to add more independent references, majority are articles written in various Newspapers held in the British Newspaper Archive at the British Museum. My article must have the Wiki record for the most references 😊.

Regarding COI, clearly, I’m a Freemason, a member of Palatine Lodge and proud to be part of a worldwide organisation that makes a huge contribution to society and charity, often without publicity.

If I weren’t a freemason and member of Palatine Lodge, then I wouldn’t have the knowledge to write about its long history.

I strongly suspect most of the wiki articles relating to Freemasonry are also written by Freemasons. Likewise, most of the articles written about golf will have been written by golfers! Nothing wrong with that!

I quote, “Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopaedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on ALL branches of knowledge”. And I’d hope without censorship or prejudice.

To be clear, I am not promoting Freemasonry. My only motive is to add to the compendium of knowledge available to current and future generations.

Given the extensive referencing in my article are you happy for me to resubmit it?

Thanks and regards Stev201961 (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You can re-submit but I'd give the odds at 90% that it is promptly declined by a reviewer. Your sourcing is 95% primary sources from the lodge and frankly, Wikipedia doesn't care what a subject has to say about themselves or those connected to it. If the wider world doesn't care to write about it then it is not notable under wikipedia guidelines. Adding a few newspaper articles does not change the fact that the article is over-reliant on primary connected sources and what little content you are getting from secondary sources is marginal at best.

As to your affliation, compliance with WP:COI is not optional and you need to make a declaration on your user page about the article.

And declining to publish a written history of a lodge, culled from its own records, written by one of its members is not censorship, it's the core of wikipedia policy. And I suggest not using that line again, it won't go over well.Slywriter (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again for your response.

Regarding your comment,

“Your sourcing is 95% primary sources from the lodge”.

This is not accurate. Primary sources are now backed up by Independent secondary sources. Independent sources include those from the Digital Humanities Institute, held at the University of Sheffield, several historical articles from the British Newspaper archive held at the British Museum and articles from other non-related Masonic websites. So, to be more accurate my sources are 50% primary and 50% secondary independent sources.

Also, regarding your comment.

“If the wider world doesn't care to write about it then it is not notable under Wikipedia guidelines”

This can’t be true. Surely what’s important is to capture what the world doesn’t know about and educate. Today’s Wiki featured Article is Uroš Drenović. Does the wider world care to write about Uroš Drenović? No, but that doesn’t mean an article about him shouldn’t be written and feature in Wikipedia.

Likewise, the wider world may not care about Palatine Lodge No 97, but it has been an important part of the Northeast of England’s social history and should therefor feature in Wikipedia.

Thanks, and regards, Stev201961 (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Stev201961, first a reminder that compliance with WP:COI is not optional. Second, yes it can be true. As shown by the numerous independent sources used in Drenovic article. Wikipedia operates under verifiability with more stringent requirements for organizations. We are not here to be a repository of statements, based on documents produced by your organization. If an independent party researches the lodge, then we would cover what the independent party found noteworthy. As it stands, the draft is not an article that meets Wikipedia's standards and your continued attempts to insist otherwise are futile. You are welcome to re-submit and hope another reviewer sees differently, though I will document my concerns on the draft or you can seek additional guidance at WP:AFCHD or the teahouse Slywriter (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Syywriter, I've included a potential COI to the talk page and re-submitted. Regards. Stev201961 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Slywrite, I’m disappointed that you have added the comment at the head of my published article saying that “This article relies too much on references to primary sources”.

This is not true. My recent reviewer suggested that I strip out all the primary and focus on secondary sources which I have duly done and to the reviewer’s satisfaction.

As I’ve stated before, the secondary sources I’m using are from

The University of Sheffield, well respected and an independent institution.

The British Newspaper archive held at the British Museum. The British Museum is up there as one of the most respected institutions in the world, and most definitely independent.

The Newspaper articles I’ve used as references are from a range of publications, published in different cities throughout the UK (therefor different authors) and published over a span of, getting on for, one hundred years.

So, unless you can give me specific examples of the references you consider to be primary and why, then I’d ask that you remove this banner. Thanks, and Regards Stev201961 (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Review of draft article: Draft:Department of Homeland Security Outstanding Unit Award

Thank you for your review of this article. I wanted to come and explain the rationale for notability since that is why it was declined. I am generally aware of notability guidelines as an experienced WP editor (although I made a segregated new account for use of creation of this article, which is now causing me problems). In this case, you suggest merging the content into United States Coast Guard, but it would actually be more appropriate in Awards and decorations of the United States Coast Guard. You will notice there, though, that every single award listed there (other than obsolete DOT ones) have their own articles. I've reviewed Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments#Creation of articles to make sure I don't fall into that trap, but I believe me saying there is precedent is sound... All U.S. military awards appear to have inherent notability, having existed since 2004. The only difference here is that this award is new, and its absence would be altering from existing precedent. Thanks for your consideration, I am reluctant to seem like I'm trying to argue the point, and I appreciate the time you volunteer to make WP better. Castawayed (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Castawayed, Is there a discussion that shows consensus of inherent notability? As WP:GNG must be met by any article, except a few narrow carveouts. In fact, a quick look at some of the other awards show many suffer from the same deficiency and do not actually meet the standards for a Wikipedia article. Also 2004 is a long time ago and community had enacted more stringent policies since then, so I am not sure the inherent notability would stand up in an AfD if held today. Though that's why I ask about community discussions to see if that consensus has been re-affirmed in recent years Slywriter (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'd like to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals but I wanted to let you know so it doesn't give the wrong impression that I'm trying to brigade the issue or anything. Castawayed (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Castawayed, no concerns there. Generally better to get some community input.Slywriter (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Slywriter. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

GOCE Copy/Edit Request; Jews of Hull

Hi Slywriter, what a nicely done article, well-organized and thorough. For its length, it's actually pretty easy to read without exhaustion because you've segmented it so nicely. I made edits -- a few sub titles modified for clarity, mostly spelling, punctuation and clarification edits. Two things: 1) Your comment on the GOCe copy/edit request was that the article is overly-cited, which I agree, but it would be far easier for you as the original author to go through and where there are multiple citations supporting the same fact, you really only need one, not severla. It would be faster and easier for you to handle this since it's not so much editing but rather just choosing one citation to use. 2) I made a few inline comments, which are ^{[superscript and italicized]} where the prose was not quite clear and I feel the article would be improved if these few items could be clarified. Otherwise, a great page! The Real Serena Joy^Talk 00:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

TheRealSerenaJoy, I can take zero credit for the article other than putting it on the radar for GOCE. Philip_Sugarman has spent years building the article and should see the compliment left here. Thank you though for your work. Between the clean-up and earlier split, think there's a good article sitting there now.Slywriter (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Excellent. Compliments to everyone involved! It was an interesting read, and hopefully Philip Sugarman can answer the couple little questions I've left in superscript. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 19:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Mikey Walsh

Hi There. Please pardon me as I am not well clued up on wiki. I am Mikey walsh and have just made an edit to a statement that my name was not real. NYT article is mistaken. I have already contacted Wikipedia as this page has been under some significant activity today and a lot of negative edits. 213.205.192.30 (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

C.Fred, Think I am out of my depth here, so hoping you can advise.Slywriter (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The editing community on Wikipedia acts based on what is published in reliable sources. If the NYT made a mistake, there should be a correction from the NYT posted somewhere. —C.Fred (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Typo alert

I'm a pedant so I wanted to let you know that you misspelled primary on WP:Articles for deletion/Integrated Systems Inc.. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:AM Stereo and Digital AM in North America

What do i have to do to make this list notable enough for mainspace? RobiH (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

RobiH, There is already the incomplete List_of_radio_stations_in_the_Americas. As you can see from there that this material is generally broken down into much smaller articles that can actually be useful to a reader, rather than an indiscriminate list.Slywriter (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

This list could be appropriately could be placed at Lists of radio stations in the United States#Other lists (if i strip off the canadian and mexican stations). RobiH (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I just did it. I just moved it to AM Stereo and Digital AM in and near the United States and listed it in List_of_radio_stations_in_the_Americas#United_States and Category:Lists of radio stations. RobiH (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Request on 07:32:43, 14 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Ihsnavihs

• Ihsnavihs (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:International Professional Security Association (IPSA) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello @slywriter,

Based on your feedback, I have completed reworked the article. Could you please review it and share your thoughts and feedback so that I could work on your suggestions before submitting it to Wikipedia again?

Thanks

Ihsnavihs (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Preventive and Social Medicine

Hi Slywriter. Hope you are keeping well. I thank you for your time and effort in reviewing this article. However I see that you have moved this to draft space. The article is useful for students who pursue medicine in that field. Do I need to rename that article to move that back to main space. Kindly guide. Thanks. Gardenkur

Gardenkur, Wikipedia isn't a job's fair. The article contained no encyclopedic content and instead was a list of education requirements and skills. You can move it back into Main space but it will be sent to a deletion discussion if it is brought back without improvement. An encyclopedia article should summarize the topic for the average reader using reliable sources that establish notability of the topic and can be verified, so talk about the field.. not the job requirements as listed on a questionable website with no author to thr article.Slywriter (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Slywriter. Thanks for your reply. I didnt mean Wikipedia is job fair but just that it is informative for students who pursue it. It is one of the important field in medical profession. Will make changes as you guided before moving it to main space. Have a nice day. Gardenkur (talk)

Gardenkur, summarize the field, not the requirements to get a job. Importance is subjective and likely applies to all Medical Doctors. Don't mean that as a negative, just to illustrate that Wikipedia articles are neutral and shouldn't show favoritism to a topic in any way.

The topic is likely notable, just need a few quality sources that discuss the topic. Hint:ToI and your first source aren't quality sources as ToI has reliability issues that may not apply here but do make them less desirable.

If there is something unique about the education path or you feel strongly it should be included, summarize it into a single section without multiple bulleted lists.

Also, no need to tag a user on their personal talk page, system by default notifies them.

Slywriter (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Slywriter. Thanks again for your valuable inputs. Not sure how notification happens without tagging. But sorry if there was any mistake. Will correct as you guided. Gardenkur (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Gardenkur, no mistake made, only a user's personal talk page auto-pings. All other talk pages need the ping to notify. Just a tip to save a few keystrokes. Happy editing.Slywriter (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Slywriter. Hope you are doing fine. I have added additional references in this article having substantial coverage to proove its notability. Could you please review and let me know if its suitable for main space. Thanks in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Gardenkur, at a quick glance it looks much better. I'd get rid of the numbering in the two later sections and just make them sentences. Submit for review and if one of the other reviewers doesn't get to it, I'll take a longer look later today.Slywriter (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs. Incorporated the changes and submitted for review. Kindly review it and let me know for any updates. Gardenkur (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Slywriter. Learnt some guidelines in your company. Looking forward to work with you too. Have a nice day.

Siglent Technologies

Sly

While I accept that the tone needs to be wound back a little, I don’t agree with the statement about the lack of references.

I followed the same style as similar companies’ entries.

I could have added more but they were saying pretty much the same things. In an era of franchised media, it’s difficult to find a lot of truly firsthand press articles. In any event, all topics were drawn from public media, with the exception of corporate announcements from the company’s public statements to the investment world. Being a Chinese public company, I had to rely on their announcements to the stock exchange as I don’t have access to a translator.

Finally, let me say that I have no interest or relationship with the company: I bought one of their oscilloscopes and was surprised to find that one of the leaders in this field does not get a mention in Wikipedia. I just tried to redress that omission.

Not sure where to go from here. It’s difficult to justify putting more time into what seems such arbitrary response with little confidence that it won’t continue to be blocked. Rob Napier (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Rob Napier, which sources do you think are independent of the company? Bloomberg is a company profile which does nothing for notability. The rest are press releases or otherwise written by the company. I mean one literally says "advertorial" at the top. So, while you may think the comments and declinations are arbitrary, they are completely in line with WP:NCORP, which requires in-depth coverage in independent sources. Slywriter (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for your good work at Sarah Godlewski and Alex Lasry. Marquardtika (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Marquardtika, Appreciated. Hopefully quiet through the election now. Slywriter (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Daft: Zach Herrin

Hello Slywriter, I am hoping you can re-review the Draft: Zach Herrin page. I have since added additional sources including a People magazine online feature that I believe now fits the required coverage for an article. Mbmoulton (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Slywriter,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 15314 articles, as of 14:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Review of my draft article

Please review my draft article Draft: Nituparna Rajbongshi I have added proper references to prove the notability. Baruah ranuj (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

MOS:TV

Don't this the wrong way, but how familiar are you with MOS:TV as it pertains to episode articles? I'm trying to understand what you're thinking with tagging An Easter Story as {{overly detailed}}. If anything, it's under-detailed as it is missing some sections. Can you give me an idea of what your line of thought is here? TIA ButlerBlog (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Butlerblog, bad tag. Was looking to draw attention to plot summary, not article details. I'll pull tag since not conveying intent. Slywriter (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

No problem - I wondered if that was the case but I just wasn't sure, so wanted to ask. Thanks for the (very) quick response. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

• News and notes: WMF inks new rules on government-ordered takedowns, blasts Russian feds' censor demands, spends big bucks

• In the media: Editor given three-year sentence, big RfA makes news, Guy Standing takes it sitting down

• Special report: "Wikipedia's independence" or "Wikimedia's pile of dosh"?

• Discussion report: MoS rules on CCP name mulled, XRV axe plea nulled, BLPPROD drafting bid pulled

• Opinion: Picture of the Day – how Adam plans to ru(i)n it

• Featured content: Articles on Scots' clash, Yank's tux, Austrian's action flick deemed brilliant prose

• Essay: RfA trend line haruspicy: fact or fancy?

• Recent research: Wikipedia versus academia (again), tables' "immortality" probed

• Serendipity: Was she really a Swiss lesbian automobile racer?

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Enterprise signs first deals

• Traffic report: Top view counts for shows, movies, and celeb lawsuit that keeps on giving

• Gallery: Celebration of summer, winter

• Humour: Shortcuts, screwballers, Simon & Garfunkel

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you, Skywriter, for accepting the draft article about Terence Ward! NomadicLibrary (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Cup of tea for you

		Cup of Tea
		Here is a cup of tea for you, to say thank you for your contributions to aid other editors by answering their questions in the Wikipedia:Teahouse, and in particular for your helpful response to my question. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

KaFe Rocks

Thanks for your prior review of the page. I have updated Draft:KaFe Rocks with more citations and news. Please have another look and let me know what you think. Chessterb (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

MOS Technology 6525 Notability

It would be nice if you could have informed me when you moved the MOS Technology 6525 page to Draft:MOS Technology 6525. I happened to notice by chance only now, more than a month later, that you had done this.

I'm not clear on the notability problem. We have long had links to this page from at least two separate places in Wikipedia ((MOS_Technology and Template:MOS_Interface); I added the page itself because that's what I was directed to do when I clicked on the link from the latter. The sourcing I've put in seems similar to the MOS Technology RRIOT page (also referenced from both places above). Can you please tell me what's missing from the 6525 page that is in the RRIOT page?

Cjs (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Cjs, See WP:GNG which requires establishing notability through reliable, independent sources. Right now, all those articles in the template appear to fail notability as primary documents or worse no sources at all are used. 6520 is redirected to Peripheral Interface Adapter, 6522 has no independent sourcing and a forum post that should be removed as a source, 6526 uses a wiki as a source which is not acceptable and is not currently verifiable, 6529 relies on Primary documents, 6530 relies on primary, wiki and a random users page again failing notability,6532 looks to be venturing into original research and has no independent sourcing, 6551 is more of the same.

So, in sum, those are really bad articles to base new articles on. Slywriter (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we're in agreement that all the pages are similarly sourced. So I gather you think that the 6522, 6526, 6529, 6530 and 6532 pages should all be moved to draft status and those links should all be removed from the infobox? Will you please do that? If not, perhaps it's best we restore 6525 to the same state as the other pages and leave the decision to someone who is willing to treat all the pages consistently? I'm also open to other ideas about how to handle this, such as having a single page for brief descriptions of all MOS 65xx peripheral chips, or whatever.

Cjs (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The other articles are far older and would require an AfD, which I certainly can do if there is no hope of improving them to meet notability requirements. Your contribution came up as a new article for New Page Patrol and so was draftifyied as a normal part of that process. You are free to restore it to mainspace and take a chance at AfD, but restoring an article because other crap exists is not in line with policy. Slywriter (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Ping Cjs. Slywriter (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so your opinion is that the current pages there stay because they've been there a long time, though they have never met the notability requirements and there's no indication they ever will? I guess I can live with that, but how do we deal with the issue that we're essentially, with the links to similar pages that don't yet exist, inviting people to put in a bunch of work to create them and then have their work hidden away or deleted because they weren't supposed to follow those invitations to create them? Cjs (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about it, the most compliant way would be to mention the items at MOS Technology page, as brief mention would just need the lower bar of WP:DUE or redirect to the generic equivalent product. That would preserve the template and links until such time as the independent notability of each item can be established. Slywriter (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

NHL Network Showcase

Wound up actually writing a proper base of content for it. I'd say this works pretty good. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

ViperSnake151, haha. happy to see a prod disappear and replaced with actual content. Looks good given how new the subject is. Slywriter (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Matt Hicks (engineer)

I have added third party source to his appointment to CEO. Can Draft:Matt Hicks (engineer) be made public? Comrade-yutyo (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Comrade-yutyo, only if you want it deleted. There are no independent sources. Your latest addition is a press release. Also the picture is a blatant copyright violation, which has been reported at Commons. Slywriter (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Yahoo news is quite an "independent" source, especially on such a neutral topic. Also, someone becoming CEO of a tech giant is not something a big media outlet can lie about. Its both verified by Red Hat itself, Matt himself and news sites sharing the press release. About Commons, I have both permission and clue that its CC-BY. The organization that took the photo shares everything with open licenses.--Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Comrade-yutyo and when Yahoo news writes an article then it might be useful but reprinting a press release does not count for notability. Never has, never will. Again, none of the sources are independent of the subject. As to the license, their website has a clear Copyright notice, so unless you can point to somewhere that shows they release the photos under CC-BY, its a copyvio. Additionally, if such notice is not available, they can not give you permission to release the photo, they will have to do so themselves. Slywriter (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

If you keep thinking Matt's accession as CEO is fake news as its "press release" despite Red Hat, the company itself verified it by updating its administrative sections on their own site what type of sourcing can satisfy you that he is indeed CEO? About the image, I have objected the Youtube video with cc-by where the image in discussion is used. Please delete speedy deletion title. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Comrade-yutyo,Find independent in-depth sources. Very simple. There is no presumption of notability for being CEO of Red Hat and you did not upload a screengrab from Youtube, you uploaded an image directly from their website which has a copyright notice. Slywriter (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

What the hell do you mean by "independent in-depth source" while the event in discussion is an objectively self-verified, company-related, non-controversial one? Really, do you expect a sort of philosophically deep analysis of the guy being appointed the CEO of a subsidiary? Also, the thumbnail which contains the image in discussion happens to have the very same piece of image file taken by the very same publisher. I think we need to ask other people about "veriability" of the article. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Comrade-yutyo, I mean exactly what WP:GNG requires. This isn't updating the Red Hat page to mention who is CEO. He does not WP:INHERIT notability from Red Hat, it needs to be established that anyone other than Red Hat cares who he is. Anyway feel free to go to WP:BLPN or WP:RSN but I stand by your sources are not independent, so they fail to establish notability. And again, the Youtube video is CC-BY, that does not mean the image taken directly from their website is. Slywriter (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Slywriter! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Way to see how many pages in Category, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

My article for submission was not the one posted on my talk page

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Slywriter was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2022 A7FL championship and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2022 A7FL championship, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Slywriter (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pats6XChamps! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Slywriter (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

This was not mine, my article for submission is Draft:New England Patriots records. I have no connection to the page above. Pats6XChamps (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Pats6XChamps, thank for informing. Will see if can figure out why the automated script did that. Slywriter (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Rush Creek

Hello, I saw the merge discussion and closed it as premature. The editor moved a draft that I created as part of NPP, but I have now moved it back to Draft:Rush Creek (Texas). I think this editor should submit with AFC. Bruxton (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Bruxton, No worries. NPP lead me to tagging merge since didn't think content would survive on its own. Then intentionally left it unreviewed for another set of eyes. tl;dr Worked as expected. Slywriter (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

• From the editors: Rise of the machines, or something

• News and notes: Information considered harmful

• In the media: Censorship, medieval hoaxes, "pathetic supervillains", FB-WMF AI TL bid, dirty duchess deeds done dirt cheap

• Op-Ed: The "recession" affair

• Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (part 3)

• Election guide: The chosen six: 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections

• Community view: Youth culture and notability

• Opinion: Criminals among us

• Arbitration report: Winds of change blow for cyclone editors, deletion dustup draws toward denouement

• Deletion report: This is Gonzo Country

• Discussion report: Notability for train stations, notices for mobile editors, noticeboards for the rest of us

• Traffic report: US TV, JP ex-PM, outer space, and politics of IN, US, UK top charts for July

• Featured content: A little list with surprisingly few lists

• Tips and tricks: Cleaning up awful citations with Citation bot

• In focus: Wikidata insights from a handy little tool

• On the bright side: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war — three (more) stories

• Essay: How to research an image

• Recent research: A century of rulemaking on Wikipedia analyzed

• Serendipity: Don't cite Wikipedia

• Gallery: A backstage pass

• From the archives: 2012 Russian Wikipedia shutdown as it happened

• Humour: Why did the chicken cross the road?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP drive award

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		This award is given to Slywriter for 122 reviews in the July NPP backlog reduction drive. Your contributions played a part in the 9895 reviews that took place during the drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Shrimad Rajchandra Love and Care

Slywriter, I am a volunteer with the organization and thought other volunteers in the global cities that the NGO is present in, would benefit from having this information about the organization. I have volunteered with many other smaller organizations in India that promote women empowerment and feed the needy and have not created pages for them because of their lack of notability.

I do not get paid nor do I get rewarded for creating the page nor am I prompted by anyone within the organization to make the page. I went through the COI terms specifically and made a conscious effort to leave out all bias when creating the page. But when editors said the tonality was too similar to advertising, I heeded their requests and took a new approach, which I think is showing now.

As for the question of notability. The organization's activities, which span 10 individual focus areas - whereas most tend to focus on only one - have impacted millions of individuals. If that's not noteworthy, I'm unsure of what is. Please take a look at the following pages of NGOs in India, who have far less reach in terms of their voluntary activities. Shoshit Seva Sangh SERUDS

The sources given are from news articles, independent sources such as Guidestar, and organizations that are widely recognized, like the United Nations Economic and Social Council and widely published authored articles in known news publications.

The NGO is well-known India and in pockets of the UK, US, and Australia. They collaborate frequently on a large scale with the Indian government on initiatives for Yoga and environmental protection initiatives. On a local scale, they cater to one of the largest tribal populations in India today - providing free medical care. There is no news station or outlet in the middle of the forest where the NGO operates. That is another major reason I wanted to create this page. The people they are serving are ignored by not just news publications, but are generally unknown to the nation. That is also what makes this a noteworthy organization.

I agree that we should maintain a high standard of quality on Wikipedia. Request you to reconsider your stance. Please point out sections, if you'd like, to change.

I reiterate that the organization is not prompting me to make this page nor are they paying me. I'm simply adding content on Wikipedia of which I'm aware, which most other editors ignore because lack of exposure to their work. I know it will help both beneficiaries and volunteers who are seeking information about the organization.

Volunteering is my area of interest and that's why I made this page to begin with. I request you to reconsider your help in having it be published. Dmehta81 (talk)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Slywriter,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers

The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi Slywriter,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Chandragupta

I’m confused, What’s the reversion for?

Sincerely, Unnamed User. 68.46.116.217 (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

As a previous editor said, it is possible WP:OR as there is no clear connection between your additions and the subject. Slywriter (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022

• News and notes: Admins wanted on English Wikipedia, IP editors not wanted on Farsi Wiki, donations wanted everywhere

• Special report: Wikimania 2022: no show, no show up?

• In the media: Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth

• Discussion report: Boarding the Trustees

• News from Wiki Education: 18 years a Wikipedian: what it means to me

• In focus: Thinking inside the box

• Tips and tricks: The unexpected rabbit hole of typo fixing in citations...

• Technology report: Vector (2022) deployment discussions happening now

• Serendipity: Two photos of every library on earth

• Featured content: Our man drills are safe for work, but our Labia is Fausta.

• Recent research: The dollar value of "official" external links

• Traffic report: What dreams (and heavily trafficked articles) may come

• Essay: Delete the junk!

• Gallery: A Fringe Affair (but not the show by Edward W. Feery that was on this year)

• Humour: CommonsComix No. 1

• From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 years ago

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Subhalekhalu

Draft:Subhalekhalu has two reviews. Please review it. DareshMohan (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I am really inspired by the way you are helping out in the article that I am working on. All the best for all your success in life. May God always bless you with all success. Amen! Suzandoll234 (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022

• News and notes: Board vote results, bot's big GET, crat chat gives new mop, WMF seeks "sound logo" and "organizer lab"

• In focus: NPP: Still heaven or hell for new users – and for the reviewers

• In the media: A few complaints and mild disagreements

• Special report: Decentralized Fundraising, Centralized Distribution

• Discussion report: Much ado about Fox News

• Interview: ScottishFinnishRadish's Request for Adminship

• Opinion: Are we ever going to reach consensus?

• Serendipity: Removing watermarks, copyright signs and cigarettes from photos

• Recent research: How readers assess Wikipedia's trustworthiness, and how they could in the future

• Traffic report: Kings and queens and VIPs

• Featured content: Farm-fresh content

• Gallery: A Festival Descends on the City: The Edinburgh Fringe, Pt. 2

• CommonsComix: CommonsComix 2: Paulus Moreelse

• From the archives: 5, 10, and 15 Years ago: September 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Slywriter,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Early end of the backlog drive

A few days ago, new page patrollers got the backlog to zero. Due to the unprecedented success of the backlog drive, it will be ending early—at the end of 24 October, or in approximately two hours.

Barnstars will be awarded as soon as the coords can tally the results. Streak awards will be allocated based on the first three weeks of the drive, with the last three days being counted as part of week three.

Great work everyone! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Changes to my edit on New York Post

Hello, I preface this by saying I'm not trying to start any sort of beef or edit war with you, I just wanted some clarification. I made this edit to the New York Post article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_Post&oldid=1118614014 You revised the beginning of my edit due to it seeming misleading, which I do understand. However, you removed the comments from representatives of New York officials about the inflammatory headlines for this reason: "unless we are covering their comments as misleading, there are inappropriate and give false context." May I ask that you clarify what this exactly means? Perhaps they wouldn't seem so misleading if I gave fuller quotes and context surrounding them? SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

SomeNeatGiraffes, both of the quotes imply the NYPost is responsible for what is posted. As they were not behind it, the quotes amount to bashing the Post for political points by the two of them and are not really relevant to the incident. So unless we are covering that the Mayor of NYC and the Governor of NYS were incapable of discerning between a hack and actual NYPost headlines, I do not see how the quotes are WP:DUE and they should be resigned to the dustbin of history. With that said, welcome to try and put them in context and others may see it differently but honestly I doubt they are relevant quotes 10 days from now, much less in 10 years.Slywriter (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The implication from the two quotes may have been a fault on my part for cutting them down for putting them into Wikipedia. These are the full quotations from the CNBC article I was previously citing:

1. “The New York Post has long fostered an ugly, toxic conversation on their front pages and social accounts, but these posts are more disgusting and vile than usual,” a Hochul representative said Thursday. “The New York Post needs to immediately explain how this reprehensible content was made public. While the Post has made its preferences very clear in the New York Governor’s race, there is no room for this violent, sexist rhetoric in our politics. We demand answers.”
2. “These vile, racist, and sexist comments have no place in public discourse, even by those unlawfully hacking a Twitter account,” said the press secretary for New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who was also targeted in a racist headline.

I mistakenly removed the parts of the quotes where they seem to have acknowledged the headlines weren't officially from the NYPost. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

SomeNeatGiraffes, Quote 1 does not change with the inclusion. She makes no acknowledgement there of the hack.

Quote 2 marginally better, but again how does it meet DUE? We are not a WP:Tabloid.

Procedural point, when editing quotes make sure to use "..." to make clear words were ommitted.

My suggestion would be to put the quotes on the talk page and see what other editors think about them being included. Slywriter (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Award

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	This award is given to Slywriter for collecting more than 10 points doing reviews and re-reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

• From the team: A new goose on the roost

• News and notes: Wikipedians question Wikimedia fundraising ethics after "somewhat-viral" tweet

• News from the WMF: Governance updates from, and for, the Wikimedia Endowment

• In the media: Scribing, searching, soliciting, spying, and systemic bias

• Disinformation report: From Russia with WikiLove

• Recent research: Disinformatsiya: Much research, but what will actually help Wikipedia editors?

• Interview: Isabelle Belato on their Request for Adminship

• Featured content: Topics, lists, submarines and Gurl.com

• Serendipity: We all make mistakes – don’t we?

• Traffic report: Mama, they're in love with a criminal

• From the archives: Paid advocacy, a lawsuit over spelling mistakes, deleting Jimbo's article, and the death of Toolserver

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Shrimad Rajchandra Love and Care: 23 November 2022

First off, thank you.

I have left talks on various editors' pages regarding their issues with the page. Perhaps they have been missed.

The page has been, if you notice from inception, edited substantially with every editor's changes.

Notability of the organization may not be prevalent in the United States or the local geography of all the editors who have reviewed the page so far, but in India, it has won a distinction of being the highest fundraising NGO consecutively since it began participation at the Mumbai Marathon. This point alone makes it a noteworthy organisation. It is supported by the general public, it is transparent in its dealings. It is one of 4,045 NGOs in the world that have a consultative status with United Nations ECOSOC.

The page has been created to bring light their work and make it easier for people who wish to learn more about it get a quick grasp. That was the aim of the page.

Please send suggestions, if required or assign to an editor residing in India who would be able to suggest other ways on making the page better.

Thank you so much. Dmehta81 (talk)

Dmehta, please read the comments left on the draft. You have failed to address a single concern of reviewers. There will be no further review of the draft until the issues identified are acknowledged and corrected. Slywriter (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Article writing advice: Human Rights Violations Victims' Memorial Commission

Hello! I think you reviewed my article here Draft:Human Rights Violations Victims' Memorial Commission a while back. And thank you for doing so rather quickly. Since ive found some time to continue working on it so I was hoping if you could point me in the right direction. Maybe there are some good examples of government commission articles? Or something along those lines at what to look for. I started this article as it felt timely especially in my country's context given how it deals with the Marcos regime. I've tried to use third party sources mostly to build up the background of the agency and am not sure how to move on from there. I've mostly tried to replicate the structure of some related agency pages such as United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the Commission on Human Rights (Philippines). Thank you! Firekiino (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2022

• News and notes: English Wikipedia editors: "We don't need no stinking banners"

• In the media: "The most beautiful story on the Internet"

• Interview: Lisa Seitz-Gruwell on WMF fundraising in the wake of big banner ad RfC

• Opinion: Privacy on Wikipedia in the cyberpunk future

• Disinformation report: Missed and Dissed

• Op-Ed: Diminishing returns for article quality

• Book review: Writing the Revolution

• Technology report: Galactic dreams, encyclopedic reality

• Essay: The Six Million FP Man

• Tips and tricks: (Wiki)break stuff

• Recent research: Study deems COVID-19 editors smart and cool, questions of clarity and utility for WMF's proposed "Knowledge Integrity Risk Observatory"

• Featured content: A great month for featured articles

• Obituary: A tribute to Michael Gäbler

• Concept: The relevance of legal certainty to the English Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Musical deaths, murders, Princess Di's nominative determinism, and sports

• From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago

• CommonsComix: Joker's trick

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Advice on James T. Andrews article

Hello, I have made the suggested changes to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_T._Andrews. However, I am having some trouble getting a response from the latest reviewer who rejected it. I think I have fixed the complaints about citations, could you look at it and also let me know how to move forward if the rejecting editor won't respond? I really appreciate your help with this process. Rushistoriia (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC) @Slywriter: Just following up since I still haven't gotten a response from the reviewer who rejected it with a reason about why. Any advice would be appreciated.

Puzzled

I was puzzled by this edit of yours on the Biden laptop talk page. What is it that you feel is a petty disagreement? The question as to whether his image goes up top? SPECIFICO talk 21:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not offended by the "petty" description :) GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, do you really not see the issue with how you discuss Hunter Biden? Stonewalling, endless circular conversations where you offer little in compromise or work towards consensus. It's like you have a righteous belief that only you understand the topic and only the truth as you see it is fit for the readers. Want HBs picture gone? Find something relevent to the topic to replace it. Want the ownership to stop being the focus of the lead sentence? Write a better lead instead of endlessly trying to deny it's his laptop. Or just keep obstructing and pretending you aren't, which will lead to a trip to AE, not by me, where I don't think your position is nearly as defensible as you believe. Slywriter (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Not seeing that at all. I hoped you might be able to offer something more specific. Thanks for your reply. WRT to the picture, as I said on the talk page, you can see a similar situation in the Joe Biden sexual misconduct article. It took many months to purge that of the same sort of insinuations and Biden's photo up top. SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICOYeah, thats exactly the problem. These aren't insinuations. The laptop is real, the data is real and nothing you say will change that reality. It may not be some world changing scandal but it happened. Your intent to present an alternate reality that is based on old sources and democratic talking points is doomed to failure. Heck, even the 50 intelligece agents never said the laptop is fake, no matter how much everyone tries to spin their letter as proof of Russian intelligence operation. The facts are there, stop ignoring them. Slywriter (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Pinging rational

For what it's worth, no one was trying to exclude you from the discussion. There is no point in asking whether someone can support a potential Win-Win compromise when they have already stated their opposition. You are on the record, we know where you stand -- to ping you and demand you reiterate it would just waste your time and mine. Feoffer (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Feoffer, I'll revert my revert because its silly and my frustration isn't really with you. The flip is, I'm not sure there's any need to ping editors in a discussion that everyone is involved in already to seek a compromise that would invalidate the on-going RfC. Better to frame a solution as part of the RfC and offer it up. Finding compromise amongg like-minded editors is just going to continue the debate where it really needs to end with this RfC. Slywriter (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Why ping editors, who most likely already have the page on their watchlist? GoodDay (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: The ping template takes advantage of the new user mention notification to ping the user(s) you are replying to in a discussion. When you ping someone, they get a notification to let them know that someone has replied to their post or asked them a question. Feoffer (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The editors you pinged, were those who you already knew were likely to agree with you, however. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Was just gonna tell ya, DN or Feoffer will likely 'revert' my "belonged to" edit, but DN has already done it. The 'compromise' gives in, to those who don't want it mentioned directly (or at all) that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I hate the phrase "belonged to". It's awkward. And trying to move this forward a bit, rather than end up with some convoluted intro that ends up saying absolutely nothing. Slywriter (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Problem is, its moving forward toward a pro-Democrat slant. Eventually, the intro will be further changed to outright denying H. Biden ever owned the laptop. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Now, DN has 'again' tried to re-apply the 'dispute tag'. That's what happens when you 'compromise' in these situations. One side rarely settles for 50% of the pie. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, we will see but I do think reality is making it harder and harder for a rational person to say the laptop wasn't his.

As to the tag, absurd but ANI refuses to assist so Wild West continues. Slywriter (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I wish the 1-month protection I advised, had been put in place. All the 1RR rule does is create the repeated cycle: Editor-A adds something; Editor-B reverts it; Editor-C re-adds it; Editor-D reverts it; etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas, Slywriter
	Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you and yours nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 20:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation ousts, bans quarter of Arabic Wikipedia admins

• In the media: Odd bedfellows, Elon and Jimbo, reliable sources for divorces, and more

• Interview: ComplexRational's RfA debrief

• Technology report: Wikimedia Foundation's Abstract Wikipedia project "at substantial risk of failure"

• Essay: Mobile editing

• Arbitration report: Arbitration Committee Election 2022

• Recent research: Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement in talk page disputes

• Serendipity: Wikipedia about FIFA World Cup 2022: quick, factual and critical

• Featured content: Would you like to swing on a star?

• Traffic report: Football, football, football! Wikipedia Football Club!

• CommonsComix: #4: The Course of WikiEmpire

• From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

NPP Award for 2022

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2022. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

You're way over the WP:3RR on removing the accusers name. As something that has been published in major newspapers, it is not a BLP bio to mention this persons name in talkpage discussions, and is therefore not included under the BLP exemption to the 3RR. The next time you revert I am taking you to WP:AN3, consider this your final warning. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

BLP exempt, but have fun. We are not the media nor are we required to follow them. This involves the privacy of a 10 yo girl. So do what you think you need to do but the name on BLP board adds Zero to the conversation. Slywriter (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia the user was previously given a warning for edit warring on this very topic https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slywriter&diff=1131432169&oldid=1131432113 Maine 🦞 06:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Twitter Files

Your recent edit moved the links to the actual twitter threads from the header to the bottom of the page in external links. As a non-heavy user of twitter, those links are the easiest and fastest way to find the beginning of each string for first time reading. It would be great if those links were given more prominence on the page by moving up or garnering their own section near the top. Perhaps in a chart format with each author, date of release, and a few word summary (along with the links obviously).

Thanks for your consideration. 50.251.125.121 (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@50.251.125.121:, I'll start a discussion on the talk page of the article for alternatives but External links is generally where they should go. Links to primary documents rarely go in the article itself and these do not meet any of the reasons we would do so. Slywriter (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, as a consumer of this article, the entry doesn't need to be a full hashing of the content, that can be done by reading them in their entirety. A simple article stating what the "Twitter Files" are, what they were about and who wrote them would be adequate. A subsection with a table with the following columns, Episode, Title, 1-2 sentence summary, Author, Date of Original Publication would be a concise way of communicating this and would follow the same format as episodes of a television show which is often used in Wikipedia already. 50.251.125.121 (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@50.251.125.121:There is a discussion on the talk page about this and one of the proposals is a table format, so think we may be heading that way. Feel free to join the conversation or if you don't mind I'll forward your comments along. Slywriter (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Logged warning from AN3

See here. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Black Kite, Acknowledged. Slywriter (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Toshihiko Shimamoto

Hi I’ve just come across this in the NPP queue and I’m mystified as to why you think it masses N:PROF. What am I missing? Mccapra (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Mccapra, [22] Google scholar showed numerous papers getting hundreds of citations over an extended period of time. Enough to tip the scales to better than 50% chance of surviving AfD. Community and NPP can certainly disagree but was enough to get it out of the queue and let further discussion happen in mainspace. Slywriter (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Mccapra (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for participating in Articles for Creation's January 2023 Backlog Drive! You reviewed 49 drafts, for a total of 58 points. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

• From the team: We heard zoomers liked fortnights: the biweekly Signpost rides again

• Special report: Coverage of 2022 bans reveals editors serving long sentences in Saudi Arabia since 2020

• News and notes: Revised Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines up for vote, WMF counsel departs, generative models under discussion

• In the media: Court orders user data in libel case, Saudi Wikipedia in the crosshairs, Larry Sanger at it again

• Technology report: View it! A new tool for image discovery

• In focus: Busting into Grand Central

• Serendipity: How I bought part of Wikipedia – for less than $100

• Gallery: What is our responsibility when it comes to images?

• Humour: New geologically speedy deletion criteria introduced

• Opinion: Good old days, in which fifth-symbol-lacking lipograms roam'd our librarious litany

• Featured content: Flip your lid

• Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2022

• From the archives: Five, ten, and fifteen years ago

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

• From the editor: New for the Signpost: Author pages, tag pages, and a decent article search function

• News and notes: Foundation update on fundraising, new page patrol, Tides, and Wikipedia blocked in Pakistan

• Section 230: Twenty-six words that created the internet, and the future of an encyclopedia

• Disinformation report: Wikipedia on Santos

• Special report: Legal status of Wikimedia projects "unclear" under potential European legislation

• In the media: Furor over new Wikipedia skin, followup on Saudi bans, and legislative debate

• Op-Ed: Estonian businessman and political donor brings lawsuit against head of national Wikimedia chapter

• Opinion: Study examines cultural leanings of Wikimedia projects' visual art coverage

• Recent research: Wikipedia's "moderate yet systematic" liberal citation bias

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Organized Labour

• Tips and tricks: XTools: Data analytics for your list of created articles

• Featured content: 20,000 Featureds under the Sea

• Traffic report: Films, deaths and ChatGPT

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)