Jump to content

User talk:Nsk92: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Billybon (talk | contribs)
44 edits
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,555,174 edits
m Signing comment by Billybon - "→Help : review article: new section"
Line 414: Line 414:
Best
Best


Felix <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Billybon|Billybon]] ([[User talk:Billybon#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Billybon|contribs]]) 17:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Felix

Revision as of 17:01, 15 March 2018

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9

Van Kampen diagram drawing

Hi Nsk92, I just wanted to ask you how you drew the van Kampen diagram here [1] and if I could do it in a similar way. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.105.224 (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a while ago, but as I remember, I drew that figure using Xfig. At the time my office computer had a Linux operating system and running Xfig was not a problem. It is also possible to install Xfig on a Mac or a Windows computer, but that requires a bit of extra work. compared to Linux-based operating systems. Nsk92 (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Nsk92, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Rob13Talk 06:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Hi Nsk92, categories of the article Vugar Ismailov are mainly Azerbaijani-related. If any category is not adequate, I can remove it. Ismailov manages the Proceedings of the Institute of Mathematics and Mechanics, NAS of Azerbaijan. This is the only journal of Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences, which is indexed in Web of Science. He also serves as an editor of leading mathematics journals published in Azerbaijan (such as Azerbaijan Journal of Mathematics, etc.). He is also the Azerbaijani scientist with the lowest Erdos number. Thank you for reading. Vmash (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, whomever you are: These arguments should have been brought up in the AfD, before the rain of sockpuppetry and other disruption came down. Incidentally, having Erdos number 2 is not an indicator of notability. WP:PROF explicitly says that having a small collaboration distance from a famous researcher, in particular having a small Erdos number, does not make one academically notable. However, the arguments about editorships of journals are serious and substantive arguments, and, had they been brought up in the AfD at the proper time, it is quite possible that the article might have been kept. However, now that it has been deleted, you cannot just keep re-creating it using obvious wp:sock accounts -- it will just be speedily deleted again. The correct procedure in this situation is for the User:AynuraJafarova account to wait until the expiration of the current two-week block on that account. Then, once unblocked, User:AynuraJafarova (while logged in as User:AynuraJafarova ) can place a request at WP:DRV to have the Vugar Ismailov re-created and to specifically raise new notability arguments that were not presented in the AfD, namely the arguments about journal editorships. There will be then a discussion at WP:DRV and if a consensus is obtained to allow re-creation of the article in the mainspace, then the article will be allowed to be re-created. That is the proper procedure to follow in this situation. But, if more new sock accounts try again and again re-create the article in the mainspace, not only will it keep getting speedily deleted, but the User:AynuraJafarova will be indefinitely blocked (instead of the current two weeks block). Nsk92 (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GScholar question

Hi, I'm wondering if you could help me figure out the h-index for "Ronald Smelser", as I can see you have expertise in this area (followed here from an AfD discussion). I've been trying to do a draft for a while, and I wonder if he'd qualify under WP:PROF or WP:NAUTHOR. He is the author, with a co-author, of the The Myth of the Eastern Front. Help figuring this out would be appreciated, as Smelser apparently does not have an individual profile on GScholar. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those cases where GScholar displayed the results in a particularly unhelpful manner:[2]. First, one needs to disregard the results related the physicist Ronald E Smelser, such items number 1 and 2 in the GScholar search. Another problem here is that for some reason after that GScholar does not display the items in the decreasing order of the citation hits, and one needs to reorder them manually. When I did that myself, for the citation hits related to Ronald Smelser you describe above, I got: 91, 49, 36, 36, 34, 28, 23, 22, 21, 21, 13, 12, 9, 9, 6,..., which gives him a GScholar h-index of 11 (if I did not miss/mix up anything). That's actually quite high for a historian. In general, for someone in the humanities, h-index is not a particularly good indicator of academic notability per WP:PROF and it is better to look at other factors, such as, for example, reviews of books that he has written, library holdings of his books, editorships of journals/books, etc. Still, to the extent you may want to invoke h-index in the context of WP:PROF, a GScholar h-index of 11 is fairly high for a historian. Nsk92 (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that according to this[3] he is a past President of the German Studies Association, which is also confirmed here[4]; that's another indicator of academic notability per WP:PROF#C6. Nsk92 (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for the feedback! K.e.coffman (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Math Powerland

I'm contesting the deletion. This is not vandalism or a hoax. I'm a newb at editing wikipedia. I am looking for sources to site and plan on expanding the article. Steveengelhardt (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

discuss for page Bruce Q. Lan

Hello, Nsk92, the website AADCU Has been exsited for over 10 years, now seems a dead link,but maybe still can trace some log on google, AADCU was a very known web source in the architectural community, now i heard they are in rebuild process, so should I delet the link source in the article about Bruce Q. Lan, please advice... Thanks! Susanzone77 (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hello Nsk92. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: A detailed summary/check list has been deliberately not made because that is then all people read and they then do not bother to read the important details. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just been uploading a page pander rock duo. Having had 500 international interviews it warrants to have a page with details for people 

Captain raw (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nsk92. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer - RfC

Hi Nsk92. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello Nsk92,
Breaking the back of the backlog
We now have 813 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.
Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Contesting Deletion of the page on Anisha Acharya

Hi Nsk92 - As a part of Wikipedia Asia Month, I am participating in Women in Red campaign. Anisha Acharya is an Indian woman with significant achievement that deserves to the mentioned. Day One is not her only short movie and her other works have also been recognized. Thanks! --Parul Thakur (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harringay Tigers

You wanted to get in touch? About the review??

Email: The Wikipedia page Harringay Tigers (speedway) has been changed on 27 November 2016 by Nsk92, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harringay_Tigers_(speedway) for the current revision.

Editor's summary: -

Contact the editor: mail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Nsk92 wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nsk92

HughJLF (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not particularly. I simply reviewed your new article yesterday as a part of doing NPP. Everything looked in order, for a basic stub-class article. Nsk92 (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, great. I had the email I copied above which suggested that I needed to get in touch. I guess it's just a default standard. Thanks for doing the review. HughJLF (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello Nsk92,
Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Weigh-in Needed from Eds with Science Background

The issue of "junk journals" has come-up in a scientist-related AfD, e.g. my latest comment. I don't think this is receiving due consideration from many of the panelists, but would appreciate a heads-up in case I'm over-emphasizing this. Thanks. Agricola44 (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

mail

Hello, Nsk92. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Despite its fairly high impact factor, the Bulletin of AMS is not comparable to journals like Annals of Mathematics, Inventiones and the Journal of AMS in terms of prestige. Bulletin of AMS is specifically dedicated to publishing expository/survey articles and book reviews, and does not publish original research as such. That's why BAMS has fairly high impact factor: the survey/expository articles published there are frequently used as general background references. Publishing a paper in BLMS provides a useful service to mathematical community, but it is not comparable to publishing a paper in Annals of Mathematics, Inventiones or the Journal of AMS, which only accept papers proving particularly important new mathematical results. Bauer's paper in BAMS is an expository paper on constructive mathematics. Nsk92 (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Nsk92,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 813 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Nsk92,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 813 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

County highway 34

Do you happen to know how I would go about creating a highway shield for the top of the page? Thanks Tripp155 (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by a ``highway shield". The article County Route 34(Otsego County, New York) already has an infobox. Do you mean adding an image to that infobox? Nsk92 (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Page - GRC Envelop

Hi Nsk92, being an open source project, there is very little mention of this tool. I have added one mention to the page. There was a vendor presentation at IIA Madras but they have not mentioned it clearly on their website. Can I add this as a reference too? Let me know if this is not sufficient to retain this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathayi2000 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the sources you have in the article do not establish notability of GRC Envelop. You need to find something like published reviews, published in industry publications/maganizes, or some substantial coverage in newspaper articles or something similar. WP:GNG explains these requirements in more detail. However, note that the article is currently WP:PRODed. Anyone, including you, who objects to the proposed deletion for any reason, may remove the PROD tag from the article. You do not need anyone's permission to do that. (But if the article is subsequently listed of WP:AfD, it would be a different matter then.) Nsk92 (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban civil code

Hello, many thanks for your help in this work, now I put some sources in the page and I think that the tag can be remove. I wait your answer, and thanks again. --Al-Baco (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have added some citations to the article, but their format/citation style is problematic. Please look up Wikipedia:Citing sources, Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example edits for different methods for explanations and examples of how to cite sources. (In particular, bare urls should be avoided). Nsk92 (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stub sorting

Instead of using page curation to add the {{stub}} template, like you did at Justin Basini, please stub sort instead. Thanks. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 23:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a word -- NO. I only add sub templates as a part of WP:NPP. When I do new page patrolling, I move along the new pages feed pretty quickly and don't have time to deal with things like stub sorting, which require manual editing. So stub sorting is not for me -- I'll stick to doing what I do and will not do any stub sorting. Nsk92 (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you are very lucky that I thought to check this after you added another {{stub}}---I really do forget to check, which why I have both a signature line and a {{Usertalkback}} requesting a [[WP:PING|ping}}. It doesn't take long at all to type {{re|I dream of horses}} if you're really in a hurry. Also, being a rather experienced netizen, I read "NO" as someone shouting at me, and felt a bit startled by that. Don't worry, I've calmed, but it's something to consider for future interactions with people online.
Secondly, something about this doesn't sit right with me. I've heard "I don't know where to sort stubs all the time, so I use {{stub}} instead" (understandable, kind of why {{stub}} exists as well). It seems like you prioritize the speed of which you patrol articles. Perhaps you're prioritizing speed too much. As a new page patroller, I understand the new page backlog is absolutely huge. There are many reasons for this, including a lack of new page patrollers. Another reason for this is that new page patrolling takes time. You need to check the sources (that can take a lot of time with enough sources), you need to see if the article needs templates, and you need to see if the article needs to be nominated for deletion. New page patrolling takes enough time that I don't think the time it takes to stub sort shouldn't be much of a problem. If stub sorting would slow you down, perhaps you're going too quickly.  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 01:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, thanks but no, thanks. Until they integrate stub sorting in the curation tool, I will not do it. Nsk92 (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I need you to ping me, as I've already asked you already quite politely (and remind you automatically when I sign).
My frustration is that you're not using {{stub}} for its' intended use. {{stub}}, and its associated category Category:Stubs is intended to be used when someone doesn't know how to stub sort a specific article, if they know how to stub sort at all. If I'm not mistaken, you seem to be using {{stub}} to save time.
Can I ask you aren't willing to manually edit when NPP'ing? Is it really all about getting to the next article as soon as possible?  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Nsk92,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 813 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Nsk92, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Nsk92, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

  • Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
  • Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
  • 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) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Forum shopping

I wouldn't exactly say moving the WT:PROF discussion to WP:VPPR was blatant forum shopping because VPPR is more-watched so a wider audience hear the proposal. DrStrauss talk 14:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have suggested modifying a specific notability guideline in a specific way. The proper place to do that is at the talk page of that guideline (even if there are other pages which are watched by a larger number of people), and your original placement of the RfC there was correct and proper. The discussion, at least thus far, has been largely not going your way. Now you moved the discussion to another forum. That's exactly what forum shopping is, and it's particularly inappropriate for you, as the initiator of the RfC with an interest in a specific outcome, to effect such a move. I suggest that instead you post a short note at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) saying that there is an ongoing RfC about modifying a provision of WP:PROF, and provide a link to the RfC. But moving an in-progress RfC is inappropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Nsk92, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

  • On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
  • Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
  • 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) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Login?

I can't! I recently took a wiki break and won't be able to login till the 10th of November. The RfA can't wait and I intend to express my support for the candidate. Check my talk page. Mahveotm

Don't worry, I bypassed it using mobile! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.34.51 (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Err, not sure what the comments above mean, but if you can't log in, you can't vote in an RfA, period, and the reasons why you can't log in don't matter. Nsk92 (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Nsk92, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

  • Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nsk92. 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)[reply]

Can you fix the disambiguation link to Hecke algebra in Rostislav Grigorchuk? Cheers! bd2412 T 17:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Nsk92 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! bd2412 T 19:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Nsk92, 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) [reply]

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Nsk92, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

  • The total number of reviews completed for the month.
  • The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Nsk92, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!
The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
  • We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

  • We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
  • Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Help : review article

Hi Let me introduce myself. I am Felix and I’m a novice in Wikipedia ! I wrote an article recently, it’s a biography of a french-american journalist : Laura Haim. Now, I’m waiting for validation from wikipedian reviewer. Would you be able to help me? I have no idea how long it could take… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Laura_Haim Many thanks for your help. Best

Felix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybon (talk • contribs) 17:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nsk92&oldid=830570087"