Open main menu

A starEdit

  The Editor's Barnstar
For being a conscientious Wikipedia editor User:Lightburst 22:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh lord. I had a spelling blunder on that star! the difference between conscientious and contentious is just a few letters but the meaning is flipped 180. I appreciated your efforts and meant to give you the conscientious star! User:Lightburst 17:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Legally defined?Edit

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Hudson, New Jersey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Hudson, New Jersey you have mentioned the concept of 'legally defined', but have not clarified what you mean and how that relates to the discussion or what policy you are basing your claim on. You have added cited Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates but been unclear as what you are referring to. Can you please explain? Thanks Djflem (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, please, as offered, review the sources cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Hudson, New Jersey, which clearly establish the use of the term and it's definition.Djflem (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Djflem: Sorry, it was late and I thought WP:GEO linked to WP:GEOLAND, which discusses legally defined human geographies (states, counties, municipal councils) as opposed to "informal" geographies (such as North Hudson, which have to pass WP:GNG). As I've said, I've looked through the sources and I don't see anything which actually defines it as a place, informal or not - it's just WP:SYNTH. SportingFlyer T·C 18:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I beg you too, open the link and make sure real info is on transport united fc page 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 truth forever https://www.facebook.com/TUFCBHUTAN/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.121.22 (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Rollback grantedEdit

Hi SportingFlyer. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Christopher KaelinEdit

A properly attributed block-quote is not a copyright violation. I am going to undo your edit and hope that you do not undo a properly referenced quote. Please focus elsewhere. User:Lightburst 04:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Lightburst: No, it can still be a copyright violation, especially since the copy and pasted text is from a copyrighted website. It's also bad form. What it's not is plagiarised, since it's properly attributed. I've left a note on the copyvio page for someone to take a look. SportingFlyer T·C 07:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
You have a misunderstanding of what constitutes a copyright violation. I would appreciate you not editing articles that I have started to remove properly referenced material without getting consensus. This is a big encyclopedia and there is much to do without squabbling with editors and living in contentious areas of WP. I have some articles to write. All my best to you. User:Lightburst 13:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
One again I am encouraging you to focus your attention elsewhere. I have enough to deal with on WP without having another editor engage in WP:HOUNDING. Someone else reverted your reversion on the Kaelin article I started ...thankfully. I do not wish to be in a content edit war with you. Please stop this bothersome activity. I also would like to ask you to take articles I started off of your watch list. My best to you. User:Lightburst 12:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@Lightburst: I'm not WP:HOUNDING you. I did not look at the article since my last post here. The article is on my watchlist, and I saw you restored content which goes against WP:NPOV (by allowing the person to talk about themselves) in addition to being a potential copyright violation (it's non-free text.) I'm going to remove it again, and start a discussion on the talkpage. It has absolutely nothing to do with you. SportingFlyer T·C 19:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

North HudsonEdit

As requested, I have provided references for your review at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Hudson, New Jersey. I expect they will satisfy your consideration to change your ivote to keep. Thanks. Djflem (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Working PresidentEdit

You indicated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Working President (2nd nomination) that you would give this a second look if sources were found. You might want to examine the sources I suggested in the discussion. SpinningSpark 12:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019Edit

Hello SportingFlyer,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

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

QUALITY of REVIEWING

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

Backlog

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

Move to draft

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

Notifying users

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

PERM

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

Other news

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

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


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

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

Western Sydney Wanderers FC NPLEdit

Hello, SportingFlyer. The deletion of the Western Sydney Wanderers FC NPL article is fine with me. I'm happy to have the other A-League team NPL pages to be removed as soon as possible. I had discussions with Eccy89, and mentioned that I'm just taking well resourced information into one page to a new page.

Plus, the "Reserves" articles and Central Coast Mariners FC Under-25s and Academy page are already looking fantastic. I'm happy for the Reserves pages to stay, and the NPL ones to go. These NPL ones are just pointless.

FastCube (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)FastCube

You have no emailEdit

SportingFlyer You can email me if you have questions regarding the revdel. Cannot be published. Also not much more I can do regarding Kaelin, properly referenced does not matter. The edits you made remove the scientific explanations which cannot be reworded. So I will stop editing the article and leave it to the community. Happy fourth to you! Lightburst (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000 AFD repeatEdit

I am contacting everyone who participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000 to tell you the same discussion is happening again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000. Dream Focus 12:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

ORCPEdit

Hey there. I just wanted to note that I think it's too bad your ORCP has gotten no response. I don't know all the ins and outs of your editing record and am not really the sort that should be weighing in at ORCP but the idea of you going to RfA is reasonable. You are definitely a legitimate candidate - which is of course different from saying you'd pass - and I'm sorry no one has given you any feedback. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Barkeep49: Thank you very much. I was wondering if the silence was due to some sort of character flaw or if it was because the climate's just a bit odd right now, but I really appreciate your post. SportingFlyer T·C 23:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Europe_ElectsEdit

Hi, I added another source to the article Draft:Europe_Elects. I think, it is okay by now. Further sources are shown at the talk of the article. Could you please recheck and publish the article? Thank you for your efforts.Stubenviech (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Stubenviech: Hi mate, there are still not enough reliable sources in the article for it to be accepted. SportingFlyer T·C 01:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for coming back. Could you please have a look at the Talk of Europe Elects? I posted a link there, that shows many citations of Europe Elects. Which one should I choose? Thank you for your efforts. Stubenviech (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I added another source and tried again. It is from Saint Mary's University (Halifax). Are there an obstacles left, or can it finally get published?--Stubenviech (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Stubenviech: No, it's still not enough - that source is not necessarily independent enough of the topic (a university reporting on an alumnus) to help it get past WP:NORG. Has it been talked about in any newspapers? SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Razak AtunwaEdit

Hello. Please confirm why you have marked this article for deletion. Thank you. Jembola (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I've moved this to the bottom of the page, incorrectly posted at top by Jembola. I've posted guidance on their talk page, deleted a further copyright violation and asked for a COI clarification, so you don't need to reply further unless you wish to, cheer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents threadEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Setenzatsu (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

Hi, I'm Pichpich. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, The Astaka, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

Pichpich (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion nominationEdit

This is total nonsense. Everything you see on that page is accessible for free on the internet. The ICD-system is offered free of charge by the World Health Organisation. If my page is to be speedy-deleted, then so are all other ICD lists on Wikipedia. - Manifestation (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Bratislava Region Youth CouncilEdit

Hi SportingFlyer I have reviewed the copyvio report and have included only the sourced info. Thanks! Albi the Dragon (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, nvm, some other dude just deleted it so I'll have to rewrite a draft, check it and corroborate an explanation on notability I guess. Albi the Dragon (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Maciej KalkowskiEdit

Hello SportingFlyer,

Thank you for your recommendations for the page, Maciej Kalkowski. 7 references have been added, hopefully this is enough for it to be verifiable.

Thank you,

OLLSZCZ (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@OLLSZCZ: Looks great now as far as I can tell (I don't speak Polish.) Only problem was the article was only sourced to his two teams initially. SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2019–20 Uganda Premier League (July 15)Edit

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bkissin 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 when they have been resolved.
Bkissin (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 
Hello, SportingFlyer! Having an article 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! Bkissin (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Iraqi Premier LeagueEdit

Hi SportingFlyer,

First of all thanks for your response! So basically I should just mark both seasons as 'Abandoned' + a note of the disputes?

Steel Dogg (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Adam Klein (baseball)Edit

Hi SportingFlyer, I recently saw your review of the article that I submitted and would love to get some more feedback. I noticed that several other minor league professional baseball players have Wikipedia pages with similar kinds of sources. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reese_Havens. Are there any sources in the "Adam Klein" article that would be considered "approved" by Wikipedia, so that I could possibly delete some of the content that is from the non-reliable sources and resubmit? Any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. --WikiWriter135 (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @WikiWriter135: Reese Havens was drafted in the first round, received coverage in the New York Times, and was on the 40-man roster even though he never ended up playing in the big leagues, the articles are not comparable. Klein clearly fails WP:NBASE and all of the coverage of him specifically is routine coverage of an independent league team, so I don't think he would pass a deletion discussion, sorry. (Also, he never played for the Oakland Athletics, so the lead is very misleading.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @SportingFlyer: Thank you for your feedback. Are there any sources, such as the ones that highlight his statistics that would be "credible?" I also see plenty of Wikipedia articles of players that are either "stubs" or articles that just highlight the players' statistics. Would that be suitable? I guess my ultimate question is, how can I edit the page to make it be published? Thank you. --WikiWriter135 (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @WikiWriter135: honestly unless he received some sort of national coverage at some point it would be very hard for him to be notable enough for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 02:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:In Chang-sooEdit

Hi SportingFlyer, I

This source is by Seoul E-Land FC Official Website. Please use google translater. https://www.seoulelandfc.com/fanzone/news_view?b_id=57

In Chang-soo is manager of football club manager of Fully Professional League. Footwiks (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, When do you finish review of Draft:In Chang-soo

He definately meets the WP:NFOOTY

StylesEdit

No need to remove the styles, why don't you go check the colour clash chart! Govvy (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Govvy: There was consensus in January, and as someone colourblind myself adding colour where no colour is needed isn't good, clash chart aside. SportingFlyer T·C 21:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
There was never a consensus there were already rules in place to follow, and I am also colour blind! Govvy (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Govvy: Looks like we have a simple disagreement, then. SportingFlyer T·C 21:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

RfCEdit

How should we proceed with the larger RfC? Were at the point where editors are just repeating their points. Krazytea(talk) 23:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Krazytea: Probably an RfC on the Village Pump, advertised across sports, with proper examples from a number of different sports (see: Detroit Tigers). I'm not sure it will pass, though. SportingFlyer T·C 05:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

On LibertyEdit

Is it ok to cite PhilPapers authors and titles only, thanks.Arnlodg (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Arnlodg: There was nothing wrong with citing that paper - it's just the citation included a needless copy of the abstract, so I went ahead and removed it. SportingFlyer T·C 07:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10Edit

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

Thanks, from noobEdit

Appreciate the tip on the deletion page. Realize my mistake now. Homerseditor (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!Edit

  Thanking you for you support during my recent unsuccessful RfA. It was much appreciated, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Multiple accounts?Edit

Was wondering if you edit with any other accounts?--MONGO (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@MONGO: No, why? SportingFlyer T·C 21:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Guidance on overly promotional pleaseEdit

Thanks for your comment on the draft Shakespeare by the Lakes page. I'm not sure what I can do about it. Your comment that it is possibly notable is appreciated. I can't work out what I can do to make it seem less promotional, as I worked very hard to adopt a neutral tone and just stick with the facts. I quoted some reviewers who loved it. Should I take out the quotes? Your guidance would be appreciated. Thanks. --Cathyday (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Cathyday: No worries. My suggestions: I would take a look at Shakespeare in the Park (New York City) and model the article after that, including the history part. I'd tone down the lede paragraph a little bit - remove the people who created the company in the paragraph and focus on writing a very neutral opening paragraph describing the event, making sure everything is sourced. I'd lose the "Completed Seasons" section completely, and rewrite the reception to take the focus away on the fact it's been well reviewed - what I think is important is that the Sydney Morning Herald has reviewed it well, not that audiences and reviewers have reviewed it well. Look at the Popularity and Acclaim section of the NYC article and try to emulate that - it's going to be a bit more difficult, but I would focus more on who has been talking about the plays than what they've said, as right now it kind of reads like something on poster outside the theatre. I don't think you need to lose any of the sources, though. I hope that's helpful to you, and good luck with the article! SportingFlyer T·C 05:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @SportingFlyer: Thanks very much. These are really helpful suggestions. I'll get working on them over the weekend. I really appreciate your thorough and detailed response. Cathyday (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Request on 15:48:19, 26 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Mpower2Edit


Very useful suggestions. I will do a re-write adopting a more neutral tone and re-submit. Thank~you. Mpower2 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


Mpower2 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019Edit

  Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Sofia Airport. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Charles (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Heartland F.CEdit

Hi SportingFlyer!

Here's a few things to get you started:

  • Lede
  1. The lede (or lead paragraph) needs expansion. It should be a summary of the article as a whole. You can have up to 4 paragraphs here, so no need to scrimp!
  2. Try to avoid one section sentences, such as "They play their home games at Dan Anyiam Stadium"; try Hearland F.C are based in Owerri, Imo, along with local rivals Enyimba FC and play home fixtures at the Dan Anyiam Stadium.
  3. Try to link competitions. Things like "They have reached the finals of two African continental" should say what these were!
  4. The lede should say why the team is most notable. So, after stating what it is (a Nigerian football team), the next sentence should say they were X league champions (and link the league!)
  5. Try to remove jargon - "the top flight", etc.
  • Prose
  1. Prose just means the main body (as in text, not tables or pictures, etc). The prose is the thing that would need to be mostly fixed here. I'd recommend after looking at the things, to get a copy edit from WP:GOCE for the article... It's worth the wait!
  2. The article needs to be broad. So, things people would ask about the article need to be answerable, and easily found in the prose. The first thing that I asked was, who founded the team, and when. It just says they were founded as Spartans, and that they won the league from 1987-1990. However, the next section contradicts this (says they were renamed in 1985)
  3. The biggest issue with this article is a culmination of poor prose and proseline. I would recommend creating larger paragraphs (I'm currently working through an article on 1985 World Snooker Championship that is full of large paragraphs, which are the size I would need.
  • Other comments
  1. Are not all of the players notable? Surely they all are and should be redlinked.
  2. The best way to explain sources, is that everything you write is sourced. If you make a statement, it needs to have a source that responds to that. Some things on here aren't sourced. Don't worry about removing something small... If it isn't cited, you can remove without any issues whatsoever!


I hope some of this is helpful. I'll take a look through your sources and fix a few issues. I really recommend the GA process, and I think more articles should go through it. Drop me a ping if you have any issues, or want some more help (and/if you complete the above). Have a great day! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @Lee Vilenski: Thank you, this is really helpful! I've added a lot of content to football club pages over the months but this is a great structure. It's already taken a bit of work to get the article where it is. I'll take my time and work on it - when it's ready, may I ping you to reassess the quality? Not looking for a GA - I'm typically more interested in getting the information on the page in a good, structured format - but that doesn't mean I don't want what I work on to be as good as possible. SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, absolutely. There are some formatting things that some people don't know about, but I'm more than happy to take a look for you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Elite Pro AcademyEdit

Hi, I noticed that you put notability tag in Elite Pro Academy page. How to remove that? Is there any hint that I can do to improve it? Wira rhea (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @Wira rhea: The problem with the article is it relies heavily on primary sources (the PSSI official website) - probably should have tagged it with that as well. If you can find a couple newspaper articles talking about the academy, please add them to the article. Let me know if you have any other questions! SportingFlyer T·C 03:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation. Regards Wira rhea (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment in DelRevEdit

Regarding your comment in the deletion review, we can certainly discuss the option of userfying at Wikipedia talk:Multiple sources, and if indeed the discussion establishes a consensus that the essay needs to be userfied, we can do that. Banana Republic (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @Banana Republic: Actually really appreciate you replying to me on my talk page to not have the DRV go off on a large tangent. Will set up a discussion soon. SportingFlyer T·C 17:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

What you might want to consider is that having it in your userspace gives you more control over the content. With my essay, I've reverted changes people have made, and pushed back on other changes people have suggested on the talk page. I get to do that because it's in my userspace. People can take it or leave it, but it's what I alone want to say on the subject. In a public space like WP, you're at the mercy of anybody coming along and editing it, and you won't be able to push back so hard. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not interested in having "control over the content". The reason Wikipedia is such a great resource is that many editors help improve articles. Usually each editor makes only minor contributions resulting in something that is greater than the sum of the individual parts. I would absolutely welcome other editors to improve that essay. Banana Republic (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019Edit

Hello SportingFlyer,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

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

This month's refresher course

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

Deletion tags

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

Paid editing

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

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

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

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

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

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

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

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

ThanksEdit

Thanks for the kind words at my RfA. I just hope that when you see my name now you don't go "I can't believe I supported that SOB" :). I look forward to our paths crossing, as they have in several different places, again soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Congratulations on your successful RfA. I have a feeling I won't be unhappy I supported you. Good luck with the mop. SportingFlyer T·C 03:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

A note about a recent AfCEdit

Hi SportingFlyer. Thanks for the work you do with AfC. I just wanted to drop you a note and let you know that you accepted a draft from User:Wetolo that has now been deleted as a hoax. I noticed in their other edits that they were referencing sources that didn't exist (fabricating references). I happened to check the now-deleted article for the purported footballer "Harrison McCartney" and noticed they did the same thing there, and it seems that person does not exist. Thought I'd let you know (though hopefully this is a rare occurrence that someone would be so dedicated to vandalism). Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @Enwebb: Thank you for letting me know and for cleaning it up, I'm sorry for accepting it! Do you remember, was this the article which claimed he had played for Manchester United back in the 19th century? I was going through football AfCs in bulk that day reasonably quickly (most of them are created by only two or three accounts so you fall into a pattern in what you're looking for) and don't think I checked sources for that one since they were both offline. Will be more careful in the future. SportingFlyer T·C 17:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    Don't feel too bad, they were very convincing fake sources. I wouldn't have caught it but for their eye-popping claims on an article I watch. Both the purported references were offline/unlinked, but running an exact google search on the titles had no results for any of the three sources used. I'd expect to see at least something on Google Books, WorldCat, or Amazon. And yes, it was a biography about a footballer who played for Man U in the 19th/early 20th centuries. It was quite the effort from the editor! Enwebb (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Drafts of Das osmnezzEdit

I know you're active at AFC and have dealt with this editor's submissions quite a lot. I'm concerned about the number they are creating which are non-notable and have little chance of becoming notable. There are also language and sourcing issues. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 14:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @GiantSnowman: On the whole, I agree with you, but my bigger concern is the poor state of the lede and prose in most of these articles. I only accept those which clearly pass WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, and I refuse to spend time figuring out if the player passes either unless they're clear in the prose. Having a one-sentence article with 20 references doesn't really help the project, I'd much rather get them to focus on developing the articles they're creating as opposed to bulk-creating articles, since they do find sources for articles relatively well. The bigger problem I'm having at AfC is with articles like Draft:1992 Belgian Super Cup (notable, but not properly sourced, and there are several Belgian Super Cup articles like these currently up for review) and Draft:Dexter Walker (footballer) (technically passes WP:NFOOTY, but the source quality is poor, and there are several St. Vincent draft articles exactly like these currently up for review.) SportingFlyer T·C 17:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. What's the ratio of acceptable to unacceptable (ie non-notable and/or poorly written) drafts? GiantSnowman 13:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: I don't think any of the articles are anything more than stubs, though they hopefully should be expandable with the references provided. Draft:Roger Vaaler and Draft:Fredrik_Bryngelsson clearly notable IMO, but someone like Draft:Dino Mennillo could be but it's not clear if he is from the article. Three is a terrible sample size, but all three need cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 19:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Maradu apartments demolition orderEdit

Thanks for the copyright check. The first edit you made was an excerpt from an Indian Law which was quoted in the article. An Indian law does not have copyright. The second section you removed were copyright violations. I have addressed those issues and reentered the information. Thanks again. --Drajay1976 (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "SportingFlyer".