User talk:Travelbird/Archive 6

William Jesse Ramey

I was bold and de-tagged this for speedy - I was tempted to tag for A7 myself when I first saw it, but I think there is just enough to squeeze by on A7. As you and I have both pointed out on the talk page, there are still serious notabilty/sourcing issues. – ukexpat (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your A7 speedy deletion tag on Dan Charnas

The line "He is considered one of the creators of hip-hop journalism" with a source does "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." Please remove this tag. --Oakshade (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

My contributions in templates: How to fix them?

Hello, Travelbird. Is it possible to remove my edits from the template Template:User_Poland with the exception of the last two? All these edits were done in good faith, but now I see that a little exaggerating with their number, as a newcomer to Wikipedia. Editions with the numeric IP are also mine. I have a similar problem with the template Template:User_Poland/layout to the Commons, where only the last edition is to leave. Best regards. --Robsuper (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted your edits back to the original version. That means the template is now back to the version before your started editing. Travelbird (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, man! That is not what I meant. That I can do the same. I would like to have disappeared from the history of editing all of my edits, except for my last two. It seems there is work only for the administrator. What do you think? --Robsuper (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want your username to be stricken from the edit history list then yes. However note that such wishes are not usually granted unless there is some overriding need for it. Is there any particular reason why you want your edits not to be shown in the edit history ? Travelbird (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in response, the wife just returned from work and ate dinner together. The only thing I wanted is to erase the history of the 10 earliest editions belonging to my account. There are no special reasons for this: just shows as poorly coped with edits to the template, as well as you can see my IP, only for these reasons, nothing more. I do not want to hide my username, even I am somewhat proud that you can see it. --Robsuper (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. We all make mistakes. It happens to the best of us. Very soon your edits will be buried under a plethora of other edit and no-one will find them anymore unless you scrolls through pages of past edit lists. Travelbird (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comfort. I am angry that one can see my IP. But if you say that other users also have similar slip, I'll give it a rest with that removal of edit history. Thanks for your support. Regards. --Robsuper (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

NB: With most providers people have IPs that change regularly. So no-one can actually trace you back to that IP unless they get a court order. Travelbird (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed you've made edits or that you are in some way connected to Albania or Albanians related articles. We are a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Albania and Albanians related topics and are organized within WikiProject Albania. I thought that you may be interested in viewing the current tasks of our WikiProject or its talk page and get involved. Furthermore, if you are interested in joining the wikiproject, please feel free to add your name in the Participants' page!. Thank you and, again, welcome among us!

--Brunswick Dude (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Glenn Docherty

Hello Travelbird. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Glenn Docherty, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'm not really sure that's correct. The page was deletd twice and non-notable local politican. And I don't see anything that has changed this on the current article. Travelbird (talk) 06:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Dochery has been elected mayor since the last AfD. I don't know if that makes him notable or not, but I prefer to err on the side of caution. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Lovro and Lilly Matačić Foundation page

Hi, Travelbird! You nominated the page I created for Lovro and Lilly Matačić Foundation "because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement" and it was deleted. The people from Lovro and Lilly Matačić Foundation asked me to do the page for them, and gave me the permission in a written form that was sent to the e-mail permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Is that all we have to do, or is there something else we could do to avoid deletion? Thank you very much for your response. Below you will find the letter with copyright permission.

I hereby affirm that I, Josip Nalis, General Secretary of Lovro & Lilly Matacic Foundation am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://fondmatacic.hr/index.php?lang=en I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Josip Nalis,General Secretary

Never mind the previous comment, we got our page restored. Zlatka Salopek (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Zlatka Salopek (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Lasagna Panel

Hey Travelbird!

Since the article had already been prodded by me, an AfD may not have been strictly necessary. A race, perhaps? decltype (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

When I nominated it, it wasn't yet prodded. It's probably a case of simultaneous tagging. Travelbird (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Btw: Since the author removed the prod, it and AfD would have been necessary in any case. Travelbird (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahh yes, that's what I thought. And yes, you are right about that. On a completely unrelated note, I would have written the greeting in Swedish as Hej och välkomnandemen till min användaresida :) Regards, decltype (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

More threat/insult language from J3wman

Seeing as you were recently dealing with J3wman (which looks like "Jewman" to me) and the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Eegit Lampard (SEL) (noting humorously that "Eegit" is a form of "idiot"). The editor just appended to the closed AfD the following:

MAY ALLAH SMITE THE UNBELIEVERS OF SEL — Preceding unsigned comment added by J3wman (talk • contribs) 16:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's my role to do anything, but thought to bring it to your attention. Sorry to be such an eegit! --Quartermaster (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I gave him another warning. If he continues he'll eventually be banned as a vandalism only account. Travelbird (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

He asked about the deletion on my page; I responded and offered his final warning. We'll see what comes of it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

He subsequently posted further attack pages and got banned. Travelbird (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Carmen Barbieri

I have to finish translating. Now I'll finish translating — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flores,Alberto (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Great. Now that sources have been added, I'll remove the deletion tag. Travelbird (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Stan Eegit Lampard

I am very unhappy with the events that has happened today. I wasn't given notification of the impending deletion, only just nomination warnings.

I think you have acted very ignorantly and haven't given us enough time to get together sources and more information. I have left a message on User:Ultraexactzz discussion board to obtain further information into why it had been deleted. As you may tell I am very furious at the moment. At the moment all is ask for is for my page to be returned and no more ignorance when viewing articles and to give me more time in developing sources and to gather information. All I wanted was to share my knowledge on this site which I have good faith in, please don't let something like this spoil it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by J3wman (talk • contribs) 17:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC) j3wman — Preceding unsigned comment added by J3wman (talk • contribs) 18:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not tolerated and creating pages to disparage other people is not a good faith attempt to edit. You are welcome to edit and share create pages with meaningful content, but posting disparaging remarks about real people will not be tolerated and if continued on your part will get you banned for editing Wikipedia. Travelbird (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hussin Amin / Ernesto Carolina

Hey, I'm not taking sides on any previous dispute, but it looks to me like you might want to ease up a bit on the tagging. If you look at the page you tagged with the sourcing banner (Hussin Amin), you'll notice that you tagged it two minutes after the page was created. Just, give it a sec; chances are someone is working on the page in stages. If you really want to, keep a note of the pages you think need tagging and if there's still no sources in 24 hours, tag it then. Sound reasonable? Stringbean121 (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I usually do tag them, as that is the way new page patrol works. You will note in this particular case I did not prod it. Unfortunately I don't have the time to watch every single page that is an unsourced BLP and then go over them again after 24 hours to see if they are sourced. These tags are a heads-up to the prospective editor and are reviewed later by others. With BLPs especially, most pages that are created never get any sources added without a tag. Alternatively one could place a notice on the creator's userpage, however the bright orange notice bar is much more frightening to newbies than a simple tag on page IMHO. Plus the tag has the added bonus that other editors may add sources later, something that will not happen if only the userpage is tagged. Travelbird (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Just in case you are still watching this: Please add references to biographies of living people your create. You created another one at Ernesto Carolina‎ which again stayed without without references until I tagged it several hours later. And also - when you do add references, try and make them both reliable and verifiable. Vage refs to a decade old television programmes such as e.g. "evening news on Channel 8 that day" are not easily verifiable (as none of us has access to those tapes) and as such should only be used as a very last resort.

As you seem to have return recently after a very long absense (and hadn't edited very much prior to that), please also refer to our updated WP:BLP policies for more information on creating articles on living people and why sources are so important for those. Travelbird (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll see I already added additional info and references to the page. TAKE A CHILL PILL. These articles are less than 12 hours old. I don't see the point of the "new page patrol" tagging pages for deletion before a contributor has had a chance to add sourcing. If you look at the guidelines for tagging on rapid deletion, I believe it suggests researching and adding sources before nominating. That seems like it makes more sense. Also, surely there is a tag for "needs sourcing" rather than "rapid deletion"?

NB that BLP prod is not speedy deletion. In fact there is an entire group of editors that work on providing sources for these articles. of course that only works if they are tagged and if the editor that created the article doesn't subsequently remove the refs again. Travelbird (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm not a newbie. (Don't judge a book by its cover.) I'm not going to get into edit counts, but you should back off a little until you know what kind of contribution they make. Even if I was, seeking to "frighten" a newbie seems like a really, really lame idea. How about you try first to work with a user adding content, then move to nominate delete if there's no progress on the page? Or, how about you focus on contributing what's missing, rather than just tagging it?

The entire point is not to frighten a newbie. And IMHO a orange/yellow talk message bar can be much more disturbing than a simple maintenance tag. I might also add that at this point where you have started to remove refs we are way beyond a "heads-up". Travelbird (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Btw - if you are not a newbie then you should really be aware of Wikipedia's process of new page patrol and maintenance tagging. If are are an established editors, you know that you simply address the issues and then remove the tag. It happens all the time and there are a number of editors which actually spend a substantial amount of their editing time just stubing, tagging, sorting and categorizing articles. This is very tedious work which gets very little recognition, but is essential to uphold the quality of Wikipedia. I personally couldn't do it but I have the utmost respect for those editors that take on this task. Travelbird (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be provocative here, but I've worked with the community a while and you really need to give it some space. "Gardeners" are great, but the point is to allow things to grow and blossom, not to cut off the buds. Stringbean121 (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss this any further here as you are resorting to borderline personal attacks. I would again suggest you look into WP:BLP and reliable referencing. You removed a link to a CNN article I places on Ernesto Carolina and again replaced it with a vage ref to a television programme that is not verifiable. So I assume you are not willing to accept people helping you with providing refs on articles you created. Please note that you do not own articles on Wikipedia. This is a colaborative process and people are welcome to participate at any stage. As I also stated on that article's talk page, you need to provide hyperlinks if you quote websites. At this point I really can't do much more in terms of constructive critcism. I will tag the article with a maintenance tag based on the fact that you seem unwilling to add reliable references and based on your removal of a prior verifiable reference added by me to resolve that issue. Please do not remove the maintenance tag unless you add references that are both reliable and verifiable. Travelbird (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I just reviewed the guidelines around personal attacks, and I think you're way off base. "Take a Chill Pill" is not a personal attack; it's a suggestion. "Try to work with a user" and "Give it some space" are also not personal attacks. I've provided several constructive suggestions which would make it easier to work together, including the suggestion that you *improve* an article or give it some space rather than just tag it for deletion within minutes. I appreciate that you did add that CNN article, and I wasn't out to delete it, there was simply an edit conflict and I didn't spot the change. When you pointed it out, I still didn't understand what the difference was (who cares if the article is old?). Now I see that you thought I was referring to a television broadcast, which I wasn't-- and if you had written me a question about that, I could have clarified. (CBS News, etc., are news organizations that issue online news reports-- so I clarified by changing it to "CBS News Online." It's available on their website, when I can I'll look back and find the URL.)

Please note that just as I don't own articles, neither are you the sole arbitrator of what goes and what doesn't. You can tag whatever you want, and I can remove it, and unless we come to some sort of working agreement then there we are. I take it on faith that you're trying to make a contribution, and I'm saying for the sake of that: just give it some breathing room. If you can't do that, it seems to me you're not really interested in contributing, only criticizing. Stringbean121 (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem in working with another editors. In fact if done constructively it can be quite enjoyable. However if your response to a suggestion (and a tag is a standardized way of doing just that) is in essence "go elsewhere", "leave me alone" and "do something else" then that isn't going to be taken as being very constructive. Nor is the fact that after you we had a discussion on one article without sources, you then add another one without sources and despite me holding off on tagging for several hours on your request, you again don't add sources.

Dude. I went out to dinner. Don't take offense to the fact that I started one page and didn't have time to finish it; it wasn't a slight at you. Instead, consider the eight other biographical pages I created today that made their way to acceptable standards (with sourcing) within a period of twelve hours. If you were trying to hold off, I appreciate that-- let's try for a compromise of several hours? If I'm not back then, go ahead and tag it for additional sourcing, or whatever.

In terms of my feedback, my message wasn't to "go elsewhere" or "leave me alone." It was to "take it easy," "give it some space," "back off a little." I really don't understand why that sounds unreasonable. Can you see my POV? Two minutes after a page has been created, it's getting nominated for deletion because it doesn't have refs... while I'm sitting there working on the next edit of the page, with refs.

If you wonder why I am so particular about refs, please refer e.g. to 1847 China Japan Gold Traders Stamp, a hoax which had a whole range of purported refs, all of which were not immediately verifiable. The page got through new page patrol and wasn't discovered until very recently. In the three months of it's existence it has since spread widely throughout the internet. I am in no way insinuating that you are adding hoaxes, but this illustrates the point that we need to take sourcing very seriously and that sources really need to be verifiable, especially when it comes to living people, where slander and false information is a much more serious issue than with a hoax about a non existent postage stamp. Travelbird (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I trust you have your reasons, although that seems to be a red link so I don't know the story. Some things like that may happen; we keep an eye out for them (like weeds), but we have to let things grow, too. We don't know each other, personally, but actually I'm very attentive to sourcing. However, I'm happy establishing a rough first draft rather than trying to get everything in the first edit, and I don't think that's going to do anyone any harm. I would definitely take it more seriously if anything I was writing was slanderous or accusatory-- but it isn't. All pages here are in a state of evolution. Anyway, I'm just asking you to consider that everyone has their own working style, and this is mine. Stringbean121 (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I added back in your CNN article. I wasn't trying to send a message, it just got zapped in the edit conflict.Stringbean121 (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

For the stamp story, just do a Google search for "1847 China Japan Gold Traders Stamp".

As for sources: You are certainly entitled to your own working style, but some ways of doing things come attached with likely responses by others - in your case, if you add articles on living people without sources they are likely to get tagged - either as unsourced or as a stick prod. In either case you have 7-10 days to add refs. If this is the way you want to edit, then just live with the tags and remove them when you do add refs. But what you can't do is be offended and tell other editors to leave your article alone, just because you choose to add your articles without sources initially - especially if you are an established editor and it isn't your first edit. Travelbird (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi could you help me with an article about Boritweeter a Latin Twitter

I want to add an article about Boritweeter.Boritweeter is a website, owned and operated by Boritweeter Inc., which offers a social networking and microblogging service, enabling its users to send and read messages called Boritweets. BoriTweets are text-based posts of up to 200 characters displayed on the user's profile page. Tweets are publicly visible by default; however, senders can restrict message delivery to just their followers. Users may subscribe to other users' tweets—this is known as following and subscribers are known as followers. All users can send and receive Boritweets via the Boritweeter website, compatible external applications (such as for smartphones), or by Short Message Service (SMS) available in certain countries. While the service is free, accessing it through SMS may incur phone service provider fees. The website is based in Puerto Rico. If you haven't heard of Boritweeter or really don't understand it, you soon will. Among other things, Boritweeter offers instant communication and the power of microblogging — short, 200-character postings made accessible to and from computers and cell phones. If you Boritweet using RSS feeds, posts can be made automatically from your blog or any RSS source.It's not as difficult as it sounds. These tips can help you become a pro Boritweeterer in no time.

“Boritweeter is a Latin microblogging service that provides instant relation by short messages (called "notes") between your friends. This is a useful and fast communication method, and it's free!”

Boritweeter is a Latin microblogging platform with support for mobile devices, tags, private messages, themes, avatars, mobile interfaces, customized backgrounds, a Twitter-like API, Twitter integration, and more. Can You help me? Francisco Rodiguez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrifranc (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

My first question in these cases is usually: Do you have a connection with the site? Whois states that the domain boritweeter.com is registered to a Rodriguez, Francisco, which is awfully close to your username Rodrifranc. If so, please refer to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest on why you shouldn't be adding an article on websites you own.

The main problem with this platform is that is is very likely not notable enough. Generally speaking a website must be very well known to deserve an article on here. Wikipedia is not a tool to advertise and promote a website, however deserving or well-made it may be. If it is in fact a good website, it will soon catch the attention of the general public and will be covered in various texts at which point the article can be added. Travelbird (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Re bottoms up and Josh Springer

Greetings, Travelbird. I do not know what will now happen to the articles on the bottom filling cups or their inventor. I acknowledge that the stubs I tried to write were not up to standard, so if they must be deleted, then so be it. As I stated in my hang on bits on both pages, I only thought to get the ball rolling, and am still wondering if there is anyone out there who would be able to write proper articles on this subject, which I see as a relevant invention, and one I am surprised has taken this long to come up with. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 04:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Institute of Modern Languages Dublin

Hello Travelbird, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Institute of Modern Languages Dublin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The way I understand that caveat is that it indeed does not applies to regular schools, but does apply to language institutes which are not really school in the ordinary sense but provide primarily a service for a fee. It the same way A7 would still apply to driving schools, diving schools, and other private institutions that do specific skill instruction for commercial purposes. This is because by default these are likely to have much less notability that an ordinary elementary/middle/high school would have. Travelbird (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

WZZQ

Hi there. Thanks for your tag on WZZQ, which I've now deleted. Just for future info, it's helpful if you just add the tag to the top of the article, rather than replacing everything, as otherwise the poor, overworked admin has to press extra buttons to check the history! Thanks in advance, GedUK  09:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

normally I do place it on top, and in most cases twinkle will do it for me. So if this was the exception to the rule I apologize, but unfortunately I can no longer recollect the article in question or my tagging of it. Travelbird (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of SCADA Group

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on SCADA Group, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of SCADA Group and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mean as custard (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I just moved the article to another name with a proper spelling. I have no particular problem with the deletion. Travelbird (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Hines Industries

Hello Travelbird. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Hines Industries, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There's an OTRS on the talk page that needs to be followed up. Will PROD, but needs sources for notability. Thank you. GedUK  11:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank You for the Welcome Info

Hello, and thank you for the welcome message on my User Page. If it wasn't you, I wouldn't have been familiar with Wikipedia codes. I'm also proud that you've been in South Korea! --Many Thanks, SimonOrJ (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Czech exonyms (Głubczyce) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Czech exonyms (Głubczyce) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czech exonyms (Głubczyce) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. De728631 (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Screencast for new NPP tool design?

Hello. This is Ian Baker. I'm a developer over at the Wikimedia Foundation.

tl;dr: We’re designing a much-improved UI for NPP tools, and we’re seeking guidance—and hopefully, screencasts of your NPP workflow—from expert New Page Patrollers like yourself. We’re asking for this so we can see (literally) what actions you take during patrolling which could be better supported through software.

---

I'm contacting you because, according to our statistics, you're a particularly active New Page Patroller on the English Wikipedia. Here at the WMF, we're working on a design for a much-improved NPP user interface. We hope that it will (as part of a larger strategy) address many outstanding issues in the article creation process, while also providing a more modern, streamlined and efficient UX for patrollers.

To do this successfully, we are relying upon the guidance of our most experienced patrollers. I'm sending this message to the ten most prolific patrollers in 2011, and a few other people who've been participating actively in this discussion.

Specifically, I'm hoping you can take a few minutes to record a screencast of yourself doing NPP. We're looking for a 10-15 minute session, but more is okay if you feel it's needed. Ideally, you'd first walk us through your process, explaining as you go, and then switch to doing NPP at your usual pace.

Our preliminary examination of this feature has shown that many experienced patrollers have evolved their own specially-tailored interface and workflow, often using external tools and plugins. Making an interface that works well will require understanding those tools and the motivation for using them. However, even if you haven't done that, observing your NPP technique will still be valuable, giving us insights into what factors inform your judgement, how you use the existing interface, and how long NPP generally takes an expert patroller such as yourself.

If you'd like to help, great! I've posted a set of instructions over at the relevant thread on the Article Creation Workflow talk page, which should get you everything you need to know. If something's missing or you have a question, post it there. That's also the place to go if you want to learn more about the reasoning behind this request.

I understand that people have differing expectations of privacy with regard to their own computer and voice. Therefore, you can either post this screencast publicly (place a link in the talk page above) or if you'd prefer, send it to me privately at ian@wikimedia.org.

Of course, any other input on this feature that you’d like to provide is also welcome. Don't hesitate to get involved in the discussion on the above-linked talk page, or contact me personally. I'd love to hear from you.

Thanks! raindrift (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Travelbird! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)