User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I really appreciate your great efforts in persuading other wikipedians to combat the backlog that we are currently facing at the moment. Also I have noticed that you have been a consistent new pages reviewer in recent times. Abishe (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Response to your request

Recently, on my userpage, you requested that I become a new pages patroller. I was actually interested in becoming a new page patroller, but I don't feel that my edit count is high enough to apply for the permission. Maybe I will able to become experienced enough in a few months. Please respond if you have any comments for me. EMachine03 (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. you could probably do with having more experience, but you are seem to be on the right track so far. Edit for a few months and decide if you want to help out over at NPP, and then request the user right at the point when you feel ready. No need to rush things. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that I'll request the permission once I have enough experience and mainspace edits. EMachine03 (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewing

Hello, I see that you invited User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver to become a new page reviewer. I have no idea where you based this invitation on, but he is probably one of the worst choices you could make at the moment. I hope this was a lapse and not an indication that new page reviewers get invited indiscriminately, which would defeat the purpose of the new right completely. The editor has no idea which sources are reliable or not, what is notable or not, doesn't understand NPOV or verifiability... Please check his talk page, the archives, and the discussions about his ArbCom candidacy. It would be best if you withdrew this invitation. Fram (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Fram, not only is ADJEAD already an NPR, I let Insertcleverphrasehere know about it already. If you want to take up their membership in NPR with someone, then you should notify Kudpung, who gave them the right. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

I've just said at his ArbCom candidacy page that I'll start a discussion to remove his rights tomorrow at WP:AN. The fact that who different people saw fit to offer this editor NPR rights will probably be a sideshow to that discussion, as this is worrying as well. They are totally unfit for the role. Fram (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, that is a bit moot, as he is already a New Page Reviewer. Before recently giving him a barnstar for NPP work, I checked over a dozen or so random recent reviews that he did, and found no major problems. I'll have a closer look though. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

You can start with Carabao (band) for starters (and all discussions about it). And then check his latest replies to me at the ArbCom questions page as well. Fram (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Fram: At this stage, don't you think you are just WP:HOUNDING? Walk away and if someone else wants to 'sort out' Dysklyver's issues, they can? There are some silly and facepalm-able mistakes that Dysklyver makes, but I feel you are having fun pointing out every single mistake and error that he makes. This comment seems ultra-relevant. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 20:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you volunteer to sort out the issues? I didn't think so. As for the comments by Harry "who doesn't have a dog in the fight", they forgot to mention that they are close friends with someone I clashed with over Wikidata; and that e.g. one of the examples he gave is a case where most people didn't see the problem until I showed that the issues happened again, and again, and again. So no, I won't walk away when I see an editor who thinks pointing out that [www.hedgedruid.com/2014/01/cornwall-winter-9-star-alignments-of-lesquite-quoit/] is an unacceptable source for enwiki articles is evidence that "So in short, you do have an issue with druids." and "how is that source unreliable? It is published, attributed to a known author, verified (presumably) by the co-author who are both druids." I don't have "fun" pointing out such mistakes, I am worried that someone like that can edit whatever they like and get asked to do and approved for new page patrolling, and get a barnstar for it. I don't mind editors making errors, I do mind editors who don't learn from mistakes or are unable to realise that they even made a mistake, but feel at the same time (probably bolstered by people giving them rights and barnstars or people trying to scare off scrutiny as "hounding") that they are perfectly suited to become a member of ArbCom, as they understand all policies perfectly. Ignoring such problems and hoping someone else will deal with them is not good advice. Fram (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Well that's it. You're worried. Obsessed. Utterly obsessed. And perhaps that is something to realise. And you might want to stop worrying. The world isn't going to end, Fram. There will be no implosions, no explosions, or both at the same time. You can't drop the stick. I had a look at how you discussed with Rich Farmborough, as HJ Mitchell discussed it, and there were multiple editors trying to say the same thing as me. If someone is telling you to stop, you might just want to stop. There's just more suffering for you. Everything will be okay. If you put someone into a corner, the result of such method of criticism is to defend their view and hold their egos high. If it doesn't come naturally, I can understand it is a little difficult to stop doing it in that way. I was on the bus coming home from work one evening and one of the passengers decided to just shout at the guy stealing money that had been previously thrown into the bottom of a fountain near the bus stop. Did the thief stop? No. Think on that. Have a nice evening. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 21:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

And you know what, this contains some hints on how to get people to stop doing something. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 21:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawing my comments, they were not made when I had a clear mind. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 23:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, I was unaware of this particular case (I can't be expected to re-review every single review that he has done before giving out a thank you Barnstar). I have made my fair share of mistakes on the wiki (once been topic-banned for arguing too much on cold fusion articles), and I have also made my fair share of mistakes while reviewing. It is hard to get it right 100% of the time and I am willing to forgive a couple mistakes, even 'major' ones, as long as there is an effort to learn from them. I am also aware of quite a few very good patrollers that have left NPP after getting attacked for making a mistake. If it is, as you assert, a systemic issue, I also suggest taking it up with Kudpung who gave him the user right or with TonyBallioni who seems to be the unofficial main coordinator of NPP at the moment. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

And there was a userpage I tagged that may been an issue too, although I got help and some mentorship on IRC regarding what is/isn't SPA advertising after that. And I have had mentorship from Zppix also. Dysklyver 19:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• There never has been an 'official' or a 'main' coord of NPP. It was however a lonesome task I found myself doing for many years until I had finally gotten the New Page Reviewer right created. With that, I retired from the role, seeking new pastures. I organised an election for a replacement but the elected editor did not take up their position. TonyBallioni has graciously offered his services as de facto coord, and is doing an excellent job of it. Tony is now also an admin and has the wherewithal to adjust any memberships to the user group as required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I offered to Toni to take up some of the coordination duties as well, that is why I have been doing some outreach and giving out some thankyous to some of the reviewers that have been doing a lot of the work lately. But I am not an admin, and do not have ability to change user rights (even if that is somehow desirable in this case, which I am not fully convinced of). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It's almost essential that the coord be an admin. there are often claims of wrongful deletion which require viewing, reviewing, restoring deleted content or restoring it to draft. Sometimes pesky patrollers need to be blocked after they have been warned to either stay or learn the ropes properly and ask for NPR permission. Not quite so important because there are one or two other admins who work at PERM too, but it's useful if the NPP coord does a lot of the according or declining of te user right at PERM because returning admins are often not up to speed and are often not aware of the tools that help them through the process. For anyone else following this thread: just a gentle reminder that PERM is not a mini RfA and that non admin comments are not required, however good faith their comments may be made. This is one of the very reasons why one of the bots was created. Tatb all said, NPP/NPR is a monumental task and really does need two coords to share the job. See the list of tasks at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination - a whole page dedicated to it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I am aware that most of the tasks require Admin, I am just helping out with the aspects that can be done by anybody that knows and unsderstands NPP, but that nobody is doing at present. I might go for RfA at some point in the near-ish future, but not looking forward to going through that gauntlet personally. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

If you are absolutely sure that you have no skeletons in the closet and stand a truly excellent chance of getting the bit, you have no need whatsoever to fear the gauntlet. There will always be the trolls and ill spirited resident oposers, but they can be ignored. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I have edited on a fair few controversial articles, so there are always going to be a few opposes from people who have disagreed with me in the past. Some might take issue with the topic ban that I got on cold fusion related articles back when I first began editing, though I am not even nearly the same editor that I was when that happened, and am personally glad that I did get t-banned, as I then had a year's worth of self-reflection and I branched out and became a proper Wikipedian rather than a SPA. I learned the true meaning of policies such as RS and NPOV, and I got involved in projects such as requested moves (where I used to be a regular), AfC, and NPP; where I think my skills are most useful. I've managed to get into and out of plenty of conflicts since that were resolved satisfactorily and not necessarily with myself 'winning', which I try not to see as a goal in a dispute anymore. Still, some might disagree that I've learned from that stuff, which is why I am a bit nervous about RfA and I keep visiting the candidate poll. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

We all had to go through it. If you want to see one of the nastiest ones where even an admin (now desysoped) lied through his back teeth and caused a lot of piles ons, take a look at mine. I still passed with flying colours when 100+ was still something to be proud of. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

(Back to topic :-) ) You said "Well, I was unaware of this particular case (I can't be expected to re-review every single review that he has done before giving out a thank you Barnstar). I have made my fair share of mistakes on the wiki (once been topic-banned for arguing too much on cold fusion articles), and I have also made my fair share of mistakes while reviewing. It is hard to get it right 100% of the time and I am willing to forgive a couple mistakes, even 'major' ones, as long as there is an effort to learn from them." No, you can't be expected to re-review every single review: but you can be expected to check the talk page discussions from the last month or so to see if there have been any problems, before deciding to hand out NPR invitations. The problem here is not so much the problems (although nominating Carabao for Prod as the first thing you do after having promised to step away from nominating articles for deletion for 6 months just a week earlier is more than just a mistake), but the lack of any indication that they are learning anything from these mistakes. Fram (talk) 07:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fram, you say "you can be expected to check the talk page discussions from the last month or so to see if there have been any problems, before deciding to hand out NPR invitations", but realistically, I do not have the time to check this for every person if I expect to be able to invite a significant enough amount of people to make a difference.

I thank you for your diligence following up on this editor, and the recent discussion and topic banning at AN prove that you are indeed correct about this user, and I would hope that the admins at PERM would have identified this had the user not already been a reviewer (I am unsure what the editor's history was before becoming a patroller).

There is a big difference between inviting someone to apply, and actually giving the user right to someone (or even endorsing the user). Out of the users that I considered inviting (from various lists of editors), I decided not to invite over three quarters of them for reasons such as lack of tenure, lack of recent participation, or because I saw very recent issues on their talk page such as the ones that you point out. My review of these editors was necessarily brief though, and it shows; there have been several people turned down at PERM out of the 20 or so that have applied out of the 100-150 people that I invited in the last week. However, I never intended my invitations to be perfect, merely to get the word out and send quite a few people who have been editing in the right areas over toward PERM to get checked out by the admins over there. It is difficult to justify fully reviewing each potential invitee's actions over the last month, when there is only about a 20% chance that they will even apply, and when they will be reviewed by an Admin prior to being give the right anyway, it just is not pragmatic or practical. As for the barnstar, I have been giving them out to all the top reviewers after having a look at a dozen or so recently reviewed articles of theirs. Unfortunately, rarely is anyone perfect, but I must have accidentally clicked on the ones that Dysklyver had reviewed well or at least adequately because I don't remember any major fuckups. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Becoming a new pages patroller

Thank you for suggesting that I consider becoming a new pages patroller. I have read, as you suggested, the tutorial and found the video about the tools very helpful in my understanding. So, yes, I would like to be come a NPP and help Wikipedia. Best wishes triptropic (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

You can apply for the permissions at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/New_page_reviewer, If it is granted, carefully read the tutorial and start off slow. Cheers. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Invite to becoming a new pages patroller

Thank-you for placing the notice on my talk page. I will give it serious consideration. Cheers. Ifnord (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

NPP invitations

About what you wrote here, I think you gave Janweh64 very poor advice - you are essentially advising him to stick his head in a meat grinder especially right now. Please reconsider your approach to that. If you like we can discuss at the NPP talk page but I cannot see your advice there getting any support. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I realise that, thanks. We had recently chosen rules about paid editing on the reviewer discussion board that I naively thought should have meant that they would have been fine as long as they kept their reviewing and paid editing separate. I was unaware of the arbcom case (I had responded to the recent proposal at NPP, but had been mainly reading and considering the implications of the proposed wording itself, and didn't go to the linked discussion, and didn't realise how high profile it was). In light of the ongoing Arbcom case, and in hindsight, it was definitely bad advice. This is rather odd to me, because people's default stance seems to be to de facto assume bad faith for paid editors that have followed the rules. I would have been willing to take Janweh64 at their word that they were genuinely interested in helping out separately from their paid activities (although I was planning on keeping an eye on him, because I'm also not stupid). In any case, if we are going to go down this road, we should probably discuss this at the VPP page as a different RfC from the one currently up there; as there is a big difference between "Editors cannot use advanced privileges for paid editing" and "Editors who engage in paid editing are not allowed to hold advanced privileges". — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not assuming bad faith. It is dealing with the realities that a) it is essential that our review processes are and appear truly arm's length and b) editors are just human and we protect them and everybody else if avoid situations where it could appear that they acted badly, or where they actually might. This is not a personal thing, but structural. Please see WP:APPARENTCOI which is an important concept.Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

There again though, per WP:APPARENTCOI, he would have a potential COI, which could be mitigated by not reviewing any articles associated with his paid activities (broadly construed). Your assumption is that the temptation would be too great, which unfortunately has borne out to be true in some recent cases. I do understand your argument that our review processes must also 'appear' above board as well, which has some merit. I am still personally uncomfortable judging someone on what the haven't done yet, but I understand the need to be pragmatic as well. I will discuss over at the NPP discussion board. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

No my assumption is not that the temptation will be too great. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

See my most recent comment at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Should_paid_editors_be_allowed_the_reviewer_right_at_all.3F. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Appreciation

• Just dropping by to say thanks for encouraging many qualified editors to step forward to participate in NPP. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Your efforts in attracting qualified heads for NPP is highly commendable and earnestly appreciated. Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 08:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The New Page Patroller's Barnstar

Dear Insertcleverphrasehere, thank you very much for the barnstar. scope_creep (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Spider-Man (Peter Parker)

Thank you! HarrisonSteam (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a favor

Hey thanks for the barnstar. Just a favor though: could you please patrol the article Asuka Ōkura? I got the autopatrolled flag about a week ago but the article was created before then and so it wasn't patrolled. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Just needed the WikiProject Biography template. Marked as reviewed now. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Re:New Page Patrol thanks you.

User:Insertcleverphrasehere, I am honoured to receive the barnstar! Thank you so much for awarding it to me. I am glad that I was able to help out with New Page Patrol! With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

First page curated

@TonyBallioni:
I made my first use of the NPP tools, reviewing from the New pages feed.

• the article is List_of_Android_devices
• I opened a discussion here Talk:List_of_Android_devices
• I also messaged:
  • User_talk:Regkris
  • User_talk:Rhododendrites
  • User_talk:Bearcat
  • User_talk:Jackmcbarn

  with the following message

Page review notification

List of Android devices Hi, I'm messaging you because you participated in the creation of or contributed significantly to the article List of Android devices. I have reviewed the page and made a note of some issues at the top of the article. You may wish to participate in the discussion at Talk:List_of_Android_devices and your help addressing any of these issues would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time and have a great day! Edaham (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

If I could have done something better and you can point it out to me, your help would be of great value. I feel that the page is overstuffed, badly formatted, under referenced and linked and could be improved all around, but according to the flowchart I was given, it requires tagging rather than deletion and it also passes under specific parts of the WP:LIST policies, particularly those pertaining to lists of companies. Many thanks for your time! Edaham (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well. You have correctly identified the major issues with the article. Which is the most important part.

I would suggest a few things though:

• It is generally not a good idea to add more than 3-4 tags to an article, as this gets in the realm of tag-bombing (even if they are all appropriate). In this case I would drop the 'no lead' tag as this is the least necessary for a list article. Also, if you use the page curation tools, it adds the 'more categories' tag to the bottom of the article rather than the top, which is one of the reasons why I like to use page curation for tags (I use twinkle for CSD/PROD/AfD though). This category tag is super common, so putting it at the bottom really helps tone down the tag-bombing.
• The page should have WikiProjects added to the talk page in order to get more eyes on the page (at least WikiProject Technology off the top of my head). Use the WP:RATER tool as it makes this rather tedious process very easy. I use the optional 'auto-open' feature so that I don't forget, though it can sometimes be annoying.(it can be set to auto-open if there are no wikiprojects). Feel free to check out my common.js page if you want some suggestions for other useful scripts for NPP.
• You don't need to notify everybody, the page creator is usually sufficient if you have a message for them, but all these users will probably have the page on their watchlist if they care about it, and they might not appreciate spam (others might not agree with me on this).

Overall the review hit all the most important parts. You correctly realised that list articles have very different notability criteria per WP:LISTN, which took me quite a long time to understand. Well done. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't installed and was literally just in the process of asking you about the RATER tool (edit conflict). I saw your addition to the talk page and was still fiddling about with how to do that. I'm looking at your js page now. Thanks so much for your clear feedback. I hope you don't mind if in the future I message you again, I will only do this if new situations I'm not familiar with arise, so I shouldn't be too much of a pain in the neck. All of your points have been noted. Many thanks once again! Edaham (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries mate. Happy to help. Good luck and thank you for helping out. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

you might want to take a look - here and here also. This is a list of people containing info on living persons with no sources. LIST makes a special case for people who have their own pages, but in this case it was coupled with a side bar containing a flag, with some political info on it, suggesting that these people adhere to this ideology. I marked it for deletion within seven days as I feel that this hastily requires sourcing. Edaham (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

For Chiang family, I think you could make a case at AfD along the lines of "no indication that these people are related except by last name--in addition to the flag/ideology issue", though I don't know much about it, so I'm not sure. It is hard to know for things like this, as most sources will not be in english. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The page creator is currently active on their talk page and is fairly new. The page is also very recently created so I'll try and work with the editor first. Edaham (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Good plan. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere. You asked Pancho507 to consider becoming a Page Reviewer. Please read his talk page. It is not without reasons that this user right was taken away from him... Regards, --Gereon K. (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I have removed the invite. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello and thanks for the invite. I'll be happy to take part but it will have to be in the New Year because I'm going to be offsite several weeks from next weekend. I'll keep your notice on the talk page and will get back to you when I return. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 22:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

All good. You aren't required to use the rights immediately in any case. Feel free to apply at WP:PERM now or when you get back. Cheers. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Gee! A barnstar for new page reviewing! I thought that this was an activity that only attracted opprobrium!TheLongTone (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep that's pretty much it! Trying to make a bit of a change to that personally. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

How am I doing so far (NPP)?

I skipped a bunch of pages I wasn't sure about but have reviewed some. Am I doing it right? Gatemansgc (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I added some WikiProjects to Talk:Kodak Alaris with the Rater Tool, but other than that looking good so far. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

As long as I haven't screwed anything up or let an article through that I shouldn't have, I'm happy. I'm not very confident in my own judgement, which is why I'm so cautious when using tools like this. Gatemansgc (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hi. Got your message about New Page Reviewing - thanks. My concern about taking this on is that I an inclusionist and don't like the whole concept of notability (in my mind it's all about verifiability; outwith WP, no one is saying we have too many articles but people are concerned about whether our content is reliable). With that in mind I'd support keeping an article which failed our frequently arbitrary notability standards but was capable of being backed by appropriate WP:RS. Unless you think I have mis-read Wikipedia:New pages patrol, I think my inclusionist position disqualifies me for this sort of work. Greenshed (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Greenshed. I dunno, that might be an issue. I'm not a deletionist, and nor are most new page reviewers. I take a reasonably liberal view of notability myself (two sources that meet WP:42 is enough for GNG in my mind). If you can agree that if you can't find 2 sources that meet WP:42 it should be sent to PROD/AfD/CSD per the NPP guidelines (unless subject specific notability), then you should be OK. If not, well, then you probably are not a great fit for NPP. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Add my comment here also; unfortunately I fundamentally disagree with the flawed approach taken by too many Admins relating to vandalising SPA / reverting SPA, to bother with being an NPP at this time. It's inevitable I will be censured at some point again in the future and would rather not have your name brought into it. Thank you for the suggestion in any case. Koncorde (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the response in any case. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Reviewer

I accept, how do I go about getting accredited? --RAN (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Have a read of the tutorial, and once you think you've got a general idea of what is involved (maybe you have already done this), go ahead over to PERM and request the user-right. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Syntax

Is the the order of Along the Sonnenstraße ran the early-new aged fortification construction of Munich correct?Xx236 (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea... — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Xx236, looks like a translation using German syntax. Better in contemporary English would be: 'The early-new aged ramparts of Munich ran along the Sonnenstraße.' However, a better translation should preferably be found for frühneuzeitliche; one which more clearly communicates what this actually means in terms of a period for the benefit of readers who are not architects or art historians. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, I was a bit confused by this one, and did not have time to research it at the time. Cheers. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Thank you for your invitation to do New Page Reviewing, and I understand the need for you to do recruiting, but I must decline the invitation, as I have more than enough to do now. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the message. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

New page patrolling

Having taken up your suggestion of signing up for NPP, I think I have made a bit of a hash of things today. I am referring to new articles by editor Fanoflife27. He has been creating a number of articles about albums with various problems that I tried to put right, and having done so, marked the articles as reviewed. Then I realised that most contained an "External links" section that led to a website selling the albums and I reckon this is spam. So I went back and removed lots of the offending "External links" sections. I'm not sure whether the articles are alright now or not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You have made the right call removing the external links. Given that all of the articles seem to be associated with Cleopatra records, I think we are looking at an undisclosed paid editor. I have sent them the {{subst:uw-paid1}} template and I'll keep an eye on them. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Invitation

Thankyou for the invitation to review new pages. As part of MilHist, I have used the NPP Browser to review new pages and note that it lacks functionality that allows one to make some sort of dent on the backlog. Particularly, it does not allow you to return to a previous point based on date/time (or anything). I have raised this through the appropriate channels and (not surprisingly) this is already an improvement in the pipeline. Unfortunately, the pipeline "appears" to be incredibly long. At this time, I am not willing to commit to such a task unless the "necessary" tools are improved. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "return to a previous point". Could you elaborate? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The browser does not allow you to filter by date created (created before, after or between certain dates). It is "impossible" to get to a particular point in time except by loading page after page. It is not too bad for a session, provided you always remember to open new articles in a new tab (otherwise it is back to the start again). It is particularly irksome if you want to return to the same place in the list (ie the same date) in a new session a couple of days later. Hope this is clearer. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah... I see. I usually patrol from the very front or very back of the list, or else search by keyword. I'll have a look into this. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New page patrolling

Will take up your suggestion re volunteering Hugo999 (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Hugo999, just stop by WP:PERM/NPR to request the NPR user right whenever you are ready. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh... I see you have already done that. Thanks for volunteering mate. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Pings

Re: Your edit here. Notifications will only work when a new line is created with a signature. See WP:NOTIFS. Hope this helps. Nihlus 03:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Very good to know. Thanks for taking the time to message me with this. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Insertcleverphrasehere. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page reviewing

Thank you for asking, but I must decline your invitation to volunteer for new page reviewing on grounds that I already have a full itinerary with no more time to spare. Finetooth (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Keep up the good work. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Insertcleverphrasehere. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Insertcleverphrasehere. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New Page Reviewing

User:Insertcleverphrasehere Thanks for the invite. I've done this but not formally. So I don't know the mechanics of completing a review. Once I learn how to do this, I'd be pleased to accept your kind invitation. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Basically the old system used to be that anyone could review pages, and most people used twinkle. A while back they rolled out a user-right called New Page Reviewer, and if you don't have it, marking a page as patrolled doesn't actually mark it as 'reviewed' (if you have the flag, it does). You can also mark pages as reviewed using the page curation tools that were rolled out with the user-right. Have a read of the tutorial (if you are comfortable with the process already, just check out the flowchart), then drop in an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. Cheers. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Put me in coach, I'm ready to play. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Awesome. I'm not actually an admin though, so you'll have to drop in over at PERM to ask for it from someone who is. (just mention that you've read and understood the tutorial and that you understand the process). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Universal Paperclips

— Maile (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer

Thanks for the invitation to apply for the New Page Reviewer permission. I will do that after the first of the year since I am not sure whether I will be online much during the holidays. You probably noted that I have CSD experience through Huggle reviews and a little AfD experience as well as article creation and editing experience. Yet, I have hesitated in replying because I don't want to be considered a hat collector or a slacker if I do not use the permission as much as the top reviewers. I do not want to switch most of my time to this area and do want to increase my work on article creation and editing to be closer to my earlier concentration in those areas. So I had to think about whether I should commit to work in this area if I was not going to make it a major concentration. I have considered that my other two permissions were granted in 2013 and 2014, and have been used. I have also considered your opinion that any participation will be helpful, which seems to be the majority view. So I will try to be of some help. Thanks again. You are doing great work and a good service to the project by inviting greater participation in this area. Donner60 (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for your work to Wikipedia. HindWikiConnect 16:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You earned it

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thanks a lot for making our cabal grow by inviting so many editors! —usernamekiran(talk) 21:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks man. I've managed to get out around 400 invites, and had 57 successful applicants. Together they have reviewed over 1000 articles in the last couple weeks, so I think that liberal use of your invite template can be easily called an unqualified success. The backlog isn't shrinking, but at least it is stable with the new reviewers. Cheers. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The important thing is, most of the applicants suggested by you were approved. You made really good calls. I want to help with that too, but unfortunately, I am not geeting much time with my computers with internet (I prefer to keep computers while working, for security [I use FreeBSD.] And whenever I am online I use other laptop with FreeBSD (again), and Slackware, and rarely Windows. And whenever i am coming to enwiki, I am working on WP:RM, and gnoming new articles. I feel sort of guilty for that now lol, for not actively reviewing new articles. I wish I get more free time to do that, and to invite more users.

This was exactly my idea. Instead of big guns like boleyn, Prehse, and atlantic who on an average review like 200 articles per day, we should get 25 reviewers doing 10 articles. Once boleyn was less active for few days, and the backlog had spiked up. With the "many editors method", if 2 editors go on one week vacation, even then we can manage the backlog average. Thanks again mate. You are "the dude!"

I think you should post these stats after a few days/couple of weeks to the project talkpage. It might make them realise what we (you and me) are trying to do/prove. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

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

Backlog update:

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

Outreach and Invitations:

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

New Year New Page Review Drive

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

General project update:

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

---

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

Curation talk

Hi. There was a very good reason for my posting that comment there. I also posted it on several other places too. Do consult with an editor before moving or refactoring their comment(s) - WP:TPOC. Anyway, no harm done ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Apologies. The curation page, based on the edit page description, seemed like an odd place for that message. When you posted the same message onto the reviewers noticeboard I assumed (erroneously) that you had mistakenly added it to the Curation page without meaning to, only later did I see that you had copied the same message to multiple boards. Per my comments, would you conside changing 80% to 40%in your comments? That number seems inaccurate and I'd rather not reply on all the noticeboards.— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup

Its A WORK In progress — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curler1200 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I replied at your talk page. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 17:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification of RD1 (copyright violation) on Free Congress Research and Education Foundation

Can you clarify on the talk page what you believe the copyrighted material to be. Having trouble finding any. --Jobrot (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thats because I removed it. See this diff: [1]. Just needs the history deleted. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Barnstar

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For inviting new patrollers and thereby reducing the backlog. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Academy

On the NPP/R talkpage, I was trying to say we should start something similar to Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy. As the right is assigned only to experienced editors, training them would not be much difficult nor time-consuming. It would be just a few tips, mostly reminders for the tutorial itself. I think if implemented, all needs to be done by trainers would be to watch reviewing activity of the trainees for a week or two. Pinging Tony. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, I have seldom observed that the tutorial looks scary to the non NPR editors. It makes them feel like it either a lot of work, or a lot complicated process. It drives them away. We should either make it simple/non-scary looking, or break it into parts. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You mean like this? The school has been out oof use for a while, but a fresh coat of paint and someone to promote it could probably resurrect it pretty quick. One of the people I invited recently (Paul2520) had some interest in using the school and seemed a bit disappointed that it wasn't in session any more, might be interested in joining. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

There already is one? I never even realised it existed. We should get it active. Maybe we should include that it exists in the invitation, and make visible in other places as well (like at PERM?). —usernamekiran(talk) 22:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it exists. I haven't done much with it because I don't have the time, but I think it would be good work to do. I would typically focus on on identifying PR and PR based sourcing, as that really is the most difficult part of the task. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I would be interested! = paul2520 (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran With everything else going on both in my life and with the upcoming backlog drive, I personally do not have the time to resurrect the school. However, I think it is a good idea and if you wanted to do it, and/or ask for help at WT:NPR, I'm sure nobody would object. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Wishes

It's that time of the year, ICP. No fancy template, but just wishing you all the best for the holidays and the new year, and thanking you for all you do. It's probably a lot warmer where I am than where you are 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Only by a few degrees mate, sunny 21°C here. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

27°C here, which is unusually cool for the time of the year in the tropics on my side of the equator. Still, it's about the best they get in the UK in high summer ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it will get hotter than that down here in a few places, but it is pretty rare, and usually later in the summer. Where I was born in Northern California it has been known to get up to 48°C in the summer... Yuck. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Our 'winter' is very short. In 16 weeks it will be in the mid 40s. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Your link

Hi,

Please know that WP:VPP redirect is leading to "VP Policy" not "VP proposals". So you have to update you the messages you posted, with the above redirect. I also changed the layout of the proposal for accessibility issue, you can however change it if the previous is better, or for some reason. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC

 Done. Fixed the messages, silly mistake to make. Thanks for layout changes, they look good. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but my change to make it WP:VPR were correct, so you fixed one valid redirect to another ;) Primefac (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Gaaaa... can't do anything right today... :D whatever, it works now. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2018!
	Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 03:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Insertcleverphrasehere!!


Hi Insertcleverphrasehere, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !!!

Merry Cristmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!

Hello, Insertcleverphrasehere! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Abishe (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Abishe (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Prosperous New Year 2018. Thanks for being one of the greatest New page reviewers in 2017 and I hope you will continue your momentum with you in the New Year's Eve. Best of luck and wishes. Abishe (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Zap2it.com, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

PRehse (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Abhilash Pudukad‎;

Hi, Abhilash Pudukad‎ was redirected by Winged Blades of Godric because its is spamming, and misleading spamming at that. The spam about the book has also affected S. Janaki in recent weeks. I've just reinstated the redirect but I'm not really sure what the best route to take may be. Please note that the major contributor prior to your curation has also been vandalising, probably out of frustration. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

​Yes, it isn't the most neutral of submissions. I did see the redirection by Godric, but looking at it, and sources from searching online, notability seems a bit over borderline, and I think the topic makes it over the GNG line, if barely. Could possibly cut it down to a few line stub with a few of the best sources and leave it at that if it gets recreated again. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I've opened a thread at the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I, for one think that he could be covered much better (in a few (~2/3) lines) at Janki's article and that will be much more beneficial to readers.Also, I fail to spot how he independently meets any GNG/SNG.Also, there are too many paid/non-paid opportunistic spammers and we need to put an end to it.Winged Blades^Godric 10:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

​Yeah, I think a few lines over there is a good way to go too, and I'm not in a hurry to recreate it either. As for GNG, there are a few marginal to good sources that cover him, but it is all pretty borderline. Even if he is notable, there isn't any obligation to cover him in a separate article, a couple of lines over there and a redirect works just as well. Time consuming judgement calls indeed... — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing Cold Water Cowboys page

Thank you for reviewing Cold Water Cowboys page. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)