User talk:I dream of horses

This user has opted out of talkbacks

en:User:Meaghan/Sunshine

Hello

Hi. Android Q is my first Wikipedia article I've ever made. Did you delete it? Can you bring it back later? You should make some it's to edit yourself too. I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm still learning and everything. Have a nice day! Thanos2556 (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Thanos2556: I moved it to draftspace. If you hadn't removed the talk page message that told you about me doing that, you'd still have the link in an easily accessible location.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cathy McMorris Rodgers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cathy McMorris Rodgers. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled nomination

Greetings User:I dream of horses. First, I would like to thank you for your nomination to be reviewed to become autopatrolled. Second, I would like to know how a negative finding can be appealed. One reviewer made one very poorly founded negative comment, and that was that. There must be a way to be reconsidered.

Their complaint, a gross over-generalization with a distinctly snarky twist, was: "Not done. Tends to create articles without categories – which is fine, but obviously benefits from the attention of NPPers who can either categorise them or tag them as {{uncategorised}}"

If they had taken the time to do so they would have seen that I have been fastidious in adding categories ever since I grasped that was an expectation of creating new articles. A brief history: I started creating content articles in earnest in 2015, with 19 that year (and numerous non-content). I created none in 2016, one in 2017, and ten in 2018. So far in 2019 I have created an even 20, 16 of them in the first two months alone before backing off during the review process, for a total of 88 to date.

Somewhere along the line in early 2019 (I just looked it up: January 19) I received a ping that someone had added a notice that a new article I had created was "uncategorized". Honestly, I thought it was a mistake, as I was not aware that editors added categories, I thought they were added by administrators or some group effort like a WikiProject for them, or by BOTs, as cruise around the Wikiverse doing all kinds of automated tasks. I figured there was some algorithm that sought out key words for tools like HotCat and then added appropriate categories to pages.

I'm just a good faith editor, well versed in writing and editing, with over 40,000 edits since 2008. I've just created pages that look and act like other pages; I don't get memos, nor anyone else, saying "These are the requirements for creating an article," or have my articles rejected because they are poorly formed. (I have only had three permanently deleted, and none since 2015, one that I made a typo in creating and two attempts at disambiguation that took other paths.) Instead, they all get successfully reviewed.

After a second ping (I just looked it up too, February 16) about adding categories I started to get the idea that maybe I could add them (not that I was supposed or required to; I still thought that there were patrols of BOTs or folks who enjoyed doing it, who evidently were included in the snarky swipe quoted above). All 12 articles I've created since grasping that I could, not simply that I should or must, have been categorized.

So, how may a sweeping over-generalization that took absolutely no context into account be corrected and a second review conducted? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wikiuser100: There's no official appeal process. However, you can "appeal" by creating new articles with categories in them, and renominating yourself in six months.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for checking your Talk page, User:I dream of horses. I can understand your needing a break here. Best I could make it out you were batting around 0% for autopatrolled nominations for those already on the list when I was and added to it through like Wednesday.

This whole thing is asinine. Somebody who doesn't remotely do due diligence vetoes a legitimate nomination with a cursory wave, completely failing to recognize universal compliance with category addition once I had been made aware that it evidently was my responsibility and not a BOTs or helpful pixies at whatever NPP is. There is no appeal process. And now the best case is waiting six months and nominating myself? It's no wonder that tip-top folks bail here...they are endlessly pushed to it.

Good luck, wherever you wander on the Internet. At some 380,000 edits you surely have more patience for nonsense than me. It's nipping at me on all sides. Time for an extended break, or permanent. Shame, as I have just been the most productive here I have ever been. Thanks again for trying to make everybody's lives a little simpler here. Obviously others don't share that goal. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wikiuser100: Whenever you see a {{bonked}} template on my userspace, I'm bored with Wikipedia, not stressed out by it. After al, all of the work I do on Wikipedia is repetitive to an extent.

For what it's worth, having to prove you'll continue to add categories to articles is reasonable, in my opinion. I nominated you prematurely, for which I apologize. Perhaps six months is overly-cautious, but if you continue to add categories to articles in that time frame, you getting autopatrolled is substantially higher than if you only waited, for example, a month.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@I dream of horses:. Bored? OK. Not so here. Exasperated and insulted. What kind of Alice in Wonderland Star Chamber court is this? Somebody is held responsible for something they have no idea whatsoever they are responsible for, then when they comply some lazy administrator ignores the compliance and states they are in non-compliance, upon which there is no appeal, requiring them to prove their submission by continuing to comply for another six months or, what, year, to be worthy of the same kind of treatment? There's alot of words I can use for that, but I won't here. Who needs this nonsense? I don't. Thanks for trying, but this is among the worst and most arbitrary treatments I have ever had at Wikipedia, and I have had lots of it, from administrators alongside the rabble. For doing what? Minding my business and being a productive, conscientious editor. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello I dream of horses,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

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

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

draft:Victor Kord

Okay so I saw you moved back the draft and I added sources - I also responded to the conflict of interest message so I believe the article is ready to move to article status? Thanks Nudgol (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nudgol: If you think its' ready, you should submit by adding {{subst:submit}} at the top. -- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 01:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

A message from Valiyaparambil

Hello, Appreciate if you can review my article which was declined last month. Hope i made all the necessary changes. (@I dream of horses:) Valiyaparambil (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)