User talk:Cameron11598/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cameron11598. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
NPR Newsletter No.18
Hello Cameron11598,
- WMF at work on NPP Improvements
Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
- Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
- Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
- Reliable Sources for NPP
Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
- Backlog drive coming soon
Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
- News
- Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.
- Discussions of interest
- A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
- There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
- What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250
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.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes, Issue 33
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019
- #1Lib1Ref
- Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
- Global branches update
- Bytes in brief
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. DannyS712 (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
History of that 2FA notice
I'm kind of sorry to dredge this up, but we have a situation with User:Fram being locally banned on en.wikipedia by "Trust and Safety" for what sound like very specious reasons; according to him the one edit used to "justify" this action was one about that 2FA notice you sent out. (To my amazement, Trust and Safety doesn't seem to have picked up the admin habit yet of instantly revdeling anything they dislike, so I've made it too late now) Now, in this edit he kind of savages User:AGK for being clueless about an ArbCom announcement, because AGK thought (as you later said) that 2FA was optional; indeed, he thought that announcement said that. My assumption is that ArbCom wanted you to mail a notice that said it was optional, but because you had been grieving (and I am sorry) you might not have kept up with a change in their text or their decision of which text to use. Can you provide some background on what happened with that announcement (where is the page it was actually edited on, for example?) so that we have a better idea whether Fram's comment had a greater or lesser degree of justification? This is important because half the people on the Wiki are going to be reading that comment now, and many may well end up reposting it themselves as a form of protest. Wnt (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Wnt: Sure I can provide you with a quick summary of events. Just for clarification I was not involved in writing any of the language used in the mass message I was merely asked to send it. The template that was used can be found here: Template:ArbCom 2019 special circular. Shortly there after some syntax errors were found in the template by DannyS712 (I think it was missing a </small> tag) and we discussed the issue on another technically minded editor (Oshwah's) talk page to brain storm how to fix the syntax issues on everyone who received the message. We ended up going with an AWB task completed by Danny. Shortly there after there was a response from the community that prompted the clarification, once again I did not play a role in authoring that language either I just was the one to click "send" for the committee. We had another syntax issue with this one (I can't recall what it was) and once again Danny came to my rescue with an AWB task to fix the message. The second message can be found here: Template:ArbCom 2019 special circular correction --Cameron11598 (Talk) 15:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- This is disturbing. I've been trying to make sense of the incomprehensible since I learned that Fram was banned under mysterious circumstances. Since one of WMF's Terms of Use is civility, the foundation may be going into the civility-block business since en.WP have decided not to do it ourselves. I remember AGK being raked over the coals by Fram and (I think) others and don't condone the extremity of Fram's reaction, but the ArbCom notice was needlessly alarming and Fram certainly wasn't the only editor who was upset. This sets a dangerous precedent; as we've learned, "civility" is a vague concept which varies by culture. In Fram's case, an NPA block of appropriate length would have been effective without creating a chilling effect—unless, of course, the chilling effect is intentional. Since there seem to be more mines in the field, I'm taking a step back from this place for a while. Miniapolis 17:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019
Hello Cameron11598,
- WMF at work on NPP Improvements
More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.
- QUALITY of REVIEWING
Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.
- Backlog
The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.
- Move to draft
NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.
- Notifying users
Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.
- PERM
Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.
- Other news
School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Milen Manoj Earath
Hello! Thank you for taking your time to review my draft: Milen Manoj Earath. How would you suggest I rewrite the article? Kindly reply. Thanking you, Refluxdonut (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi there @Refluxdonut: in its current state its not very impartial it has a fairly obvious favorable bias towards the article subject. The article should be written as impartially as possible. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking your time in giving me your feedback. Shall work on that aspect of the draft as much as possible. Thanking you, Refluxdonut (talk) 10:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
WikiCup 2019 July newsletter
The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics
Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 22:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Removed comments
I'm sorry, but if you're going to remove this comment, then please remove the comment that it is responding to where Francois Robere says " how would we have dealt with hoaxes and/or BLP attacks by (...) yourself (potentially)?". My comment is obviously written in the same manner as his. He is saying, without any basis, that I would actually create hoaxes or BLP attacks. He is asking the classic "have you stopped beating your wife" question which in itself is a gross insult and personal attack. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: The difference is you've basically insinuated someone "beats grandmothers" and someone beats "puppies", "taunts sick children", "hacking the WMF", this is clearly unacceptable. I'm sure you are aware of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:POINT so I don't know what you were thinking with that post. Further WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor justification for your behavior, one that I'm not inclined to accept. Further such remarks as the one I warned you for will result in sanctions.--Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Cameron. Do you really think I genuinely "insinuated" that someone "beats grandmothers" and puppies? Is going to invade Nepal? Will force others on Wikipedia to watch Baywatch? Do you really believe that I believe those things? Seriously? I am very very obviously writing the response in the style of Francois Robere, and it is HE who actually makes genuine, not satirical, insinuations, and worse, does it in a way that has a long pedigree of being a dishonest way of engaging in discussion - see loaded question. See "have you stopped beating your wife"?. Specifically, before you accuse me of insinuating anything, he does this by asking how "we" (i.e. Wikipedia) will deal with *imaginary* hoaxes which he, insinuates, *I* plan on creating. Needless to say I have not created any hoaxes, don't plan to and his comment is just way out of line.
- This is NOT "OTHERSTUFF". This is a RESPONSE. A direct response to someone who is making a odious dishonest accusation against me. If you want to remove my response that's fine. But you should also remove the original personal attack and in fact, should show a lot more concern for genuine accusations made by Francois Robere, than the fake satire I wrote. Get your priorities straight please. At the very least make a note of the fact that you removed my response. Jeez.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Also if you're going to start a sentence with the phrase "The difference is ..." then that sentence at some point should actually explain what "the difference is".Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's the internet, Volunteer Marek. While I know you're sure what your tone is, you are not the intended audience of your writing in arbitration space (neither, in fact, is François Robere), and in general expecting your tone or intention to come across perfectly in text on the internet is a losing proposition. Look, I agree with you that many comments at that page are wholly inappropriate and are not helping the people who make them in this case. The committee is able to decide what rhetorical devices used by other users in this instance are unfair, and I understand that the intent of your comment was to demonstrate what you saw as an unfair remark. But your comment went far enough that it fell within the scope of action by a clerk without specific arbitrator authorization. François Robere's comments might well also be removed or not be considered by the committee, but only after decision by an arbitrator. I hope this answers your question, as I'm answering on limited time. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- Invade Nepal. Watch Baywatch. ... ... ... Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's the internet, Volunteer Marek. While I know you're sure what your tone is, you are not the intended audience of your writing in arbitration space (neither, in fact, is François Robere), and in general expecting your tone or intention to come across perfectly in text on the internet is a losing proposition. Look, I agree with you that many comments at that page are wholly inappropriate and are not helping the people who make them in this case. The committee is able to decide what rhetorical devices used by other users in this instance are unfair, and I understand that the intent of your comment was to demonstrate what you saw as an unfair remark. But your comment went far enough that it fell within the scope of action by a clerk without specific arbitrator authorization. François Robere's comments might well also be removed or not be considered by the committee, but only after decision by an arbitrator. I hope this answers your question, as I'm answering on limited time. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019
- Partnerships
- #1Lib1Ref
- Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
- Global branches update
- Bytes in brief
French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello
Hello, Cameron11598! I have been working on my draft: Milen Manoj Earath which you had declined about 2 weeks back. Yesterday, I had asked a few editors at the IRC and in their talk page if the tone had improved, they had given me positive answers. If time permits, would you mind taking a look at the draft? If by chance, everything is well, would you mind re-reviewing it if possible? Thanking you, Yours Sincerely, Refluxdonut (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Draft
Hello there! This is with reference to a Draft:Milen Manoj Earath which you had declined 46 days back. I have been working on it and had sent it for re-review 6 weeks back. I had emailed you 2 weeks back asking if it was possible for you to review the draft but you were out of town. If time permits, would you mind re-reviewing the draft if possible? Thanking you, Yours Sincerely, Refluxdonut (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Refluxdonut: My suggestion would be to see if someone from WikiPeoject Classical Music is willing to review. Mainly because they are more familiar with the notability requirements in this area. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the prompt reply. In fact, I had written in this project asking for help in reviewing the draft. However, there were 3 editors, who were not familiar with the system of Trinity College who continuously tried to find flaws in our draft. They stated that the subject is not at all notable, that we must sandbox the draft, to which I, as well as numerable experienced editors (some of whom are in the IRC) object. To cite an example, The National Child Award is the highest recognition that a child can receive in India. If I were to ask again, one of them would definitely just decline it. I had asked an AFC reviewer to take a look, he said that the draft had improved a lot since the first review and that if he were the reviewer he would lean towards accepting the submission, and that explains that those 3 editors just weren't right. The reason I am requesting you to re-review is because you were already familiar with the subject and it's previous problems. This is the situation... What would you suggest me to do? Kindly reply, Refluxdonut (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately due to some issues in my personal life at the moment I don't really have the time to get to this any time soon. My suggestion would be to use any AFC reviewer that is available. My original check was at the request of another AFC reviewer for the common issues we see. I don't consider myself versed enough in the area to make an adequate decision on this article to its suitability in main space. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 07:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for writing. Wishing you good luck and hope that everything turns out well for you. Can you suggest someone whom I can ask ? Or maybe through IRC? Kindly reply, Refluxdonut (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately due to some issues in my personal life at the moment I don't really have the time to get to this any time soon. My suggestion would be to use any AFC reviewer that is available. My original check was at the request of another AFC reviewer for the common issues we see. I don't consider myself versed enough in the area to make an adequate decision on this article to its suitability in main space. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 07:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the prompt reply. In fact, I had written in this project asking for help in reviewing the draft. However, there were 3 editors, who were not familiar with the system of Trinity College who continuously tried to find flaws in our draft. They stated that the subject is not at all notable, that we must sandbox the draft, to which I, as well as numerable experienced editors (some of whom are in the IRC) object. To cite an example, The National Child Award is the highest recognition that a child can receive in India. If I were to ask again, one of them would definitely just decline it. I had asked an AFC reviewer to take a look, he said that the draft had improved a lot since the first review and that if he were the reviewer he would lean towards accepting the submission, and that explains that those 3 editors just weren't right. The reason I am requesting you to re-review is because you were already familiar with the subject and it's previous problems. This is the situation... What would you suggest me to do? Kindly reply, Refluxdonut (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
OUP access
Hello, I see that you've given me access to Oxford University Press Scholarship on 15 August, 2019. I signed up for an account on https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/ today. But I am totally lost here. How to connect my Wikipedia account to it? Or is it already connected? Sorry if I am being a pain. It is all new to me. Masum Reza📞 01:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think I answered you on IRC earlier but for clarity's sake, the next step is that I send your information to OUP who then creates an account for you. Regards, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes you did. Masum Reza📞 22:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Eric Corbett case request
User:Toa Nidhiki05's statement is now about 800 words. Putting aside that it's at bottom a lengthy personal attack, it needs to be trimmed. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've advised Toa Nidhiki05 to refrain from making similar statements and they have already self trimmed. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
New message from Nikkimaria
Message added 02:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
WikiCup 2019 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.
Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.
As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
newspapers.com
I'd much appreciate it if you would approve my renewal request for newspapers.com. It says three days pending and it's actually been over a week. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. deisenbe (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Library approvals
I noticed that your user page says ... * Last time I reviewed Oxford University Press 21:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Last time I reviewed Newspapers.com 21:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there anyone else that you know of available to review requests for these resources? Thank you. — Ched (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Ched: Last set I did was actually just over two weeks ago, I'm terrible about remembering to update that on my userpage. I've been in the process of starting a new job and moving to Sacramento So I've let things get away from me. I'll run a batch through tonight. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Actually.... there seems to be an issue with OATH and the Wikipedia Library so I can't log into process applications at the moment.... @Samwalton9: --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- OK - thank you very much for your time and quick response. Best of luck on the new job and the move - that's a huge undertaking to be sure. — Ched (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Ched: I just sent your application and several others over to Newspapers.com to be processed. You should have access by the end of the week. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Cameron11598, was my renewal one of those others? I left you a message on Meta-Wiki. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Jweiss11: did you use the library card platform to renew? --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, I had forgotten to do that before, but just applied for renewal on the library card platform. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Jweiss11: did you use the library card platform to renew? --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- Cameron11598, was my renewal one of those others? I left you a message on Meta-Wiki. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Ched: I just sent your application and several others over to Newspapers.com to be processed. You should have access by the end of the week. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
- OK - thank you very much for your time and quick response. Best of luck on the new job and the move - that's a huge undertaking to be sure. — Ched (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jweiss11: it will probably be a few days before I'll have an opportunity to run another batch. As I mentioned above I'm in the process of relocating to Sacramento, California for a new job. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello Cameron11598,
- Backlog
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
- Coordinator
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
- This month's refresher course
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
- Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
- Paid editing
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
- Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
- Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
- Not English
- A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
- Tools
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Newspapers.com renewal
Hi there, I wanted to let you know my Newspapers.com subscription had lapsed and that I was hoping to get it renewed. I submitted my renewal through the Library Card Platform (sorry if this message is in essence duplicative). I was just wondering how long it should take before I'm up and running again on their site again. Thanks, I appreciate your time. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Y2kcrazyjoker4: it may be a while... I just moved across state for a new job and haven't had internet set up or even the chance to look at service providers. Probably a week at the earliest --Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019
- Wikimania
- We're building something great, but..
- Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
- A Wikibrarian's story
- Bytes in brief
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 17:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
—Bruce1eetalk 17:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
WikiCup 2019 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is 
Adam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:
Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points- Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points- Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
HaEr48 (submissions) with 74 points
All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!
- Casliber (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
- Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
Yashthepunisher (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.- Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.- Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
Ed! (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.
We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello Cameron11598,
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
- Getting the queue to 0
There are now 804 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.
- Coordinator
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
- This month's refresher course
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
- Tools
- It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
- It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
- Reviewer Feedback
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
- 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, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
- Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
- Arbitration Committee
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
- Community Wish list
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Books & Bytes – Issue 36
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019
- #1Lib1Ref January 2020
- #1Lib1Ref 2019 stories and learnings
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control logo.gif
Thanks for uploading File:California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Help with vandalism revertion
Hi Cameron11598, I write to you because I don't know how to deal with Vandalism, I have mostly help with spanish translation for some articles. I saw a screenshot from a page in Facebook and confirmed later that Katsuyoshi_Yatabe page was edited many times since november 17. The last true edition is the one from November 15, the newer ones are just messages related to chilean protests.
Thanks,
Ravmn (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter December 2019
- Reviewer of the Year
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
| Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rosguill (talk) | 47,395 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 2 | Onel5969 (talk) | 41,883 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 3 | JTtheOG (talk) | 11,493 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 4 | Arthistorian1977 (talk) | 5,562 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 5 | DannyS712 (talk) | 4,866 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 6 | CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) | 3,995 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 3,812 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 8 | Boleyn (talk) | 3,655 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 9 | Ymblanter (talk) | 3,553 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 10 | Cwmhiraeth (talk) | 3,522 | Patrol Page Curation |
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
- Redirect autopatrol
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
- Source Guide Discussion
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
- This month's refresher course
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
New message from Whpq
Message added 06:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Whpq (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
|
Merry Christmas Cameron11598 |
|
Hi Cameron11598, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
Season's Greetings
.jpg)
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
2 more sleeps - Ho, Ho, Ho!!
 |
Merry Christmas!
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!
|
   Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year!CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC) |
Be well at Christmas
|
Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear |
|
Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas, Cam!!
TheSandDoctor Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
- From my family to yours, wishing you a very merry/happy Christmas and New Year! Here's to 2020
--TheSandDoctor Talk 07:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Joyous Season
.jpg)
I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.
Happy New Year, Cameron11598!
Cameron11598,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010Talk 00:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!
Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
RHaworth case
What was the point of this edit? Some evidence, such as deletion log entries, is impossible to present as diffs. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hey Ritchie333 the link feature has been deprecated in the template from what I can see so I didn't bother removing it. The evidence restrictions only specifically mention diffs and there is technically no limit on links. As for the word count restriction you are well under so there shouldn't be an issue. As for the point of the edit it's just to keep track of where everyone is for their word counts as non parties are limited to 500 words unless granted an extension by the committee. All in all the edit was me trying to be helpful for folks. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 13:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ah okay, I was just a bit worried that at 513 logged words I'd be asked to trim my evidence; plus I knew I was going to add some additional stuff. In any case, I've trimmed some of it down. Part of the problem is I wanted my evidence to follow DH6 of Paul Graham's seminal essay How to disagree, and refute central points (eg: the diff says 'x' but policy says 'y'), which does tend to get a bit wordy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ritchie333 13 whole words over! To the stalks with you I say! Just kidding I'm not that much of a stickler. If you want to go much over feel free to shoot the clerks list an email or email me directly and I'll make sure it gets to the right place. Sorry for the delay in replying I got your first post while I was walking into CrossFit this morning. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 37
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019
- #1Lib1Ref
- Wikimedia and Libraries User Group
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020
Hello Cameron11598,
- Source Guide Discussion
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
- Redirects
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
- Discussions and Resources
- There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
- A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
- A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
- A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.
- Refresher
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.
Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.- Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.- The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D,
Kingsif, Enwebb, Lee Vilenski and 
CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup newsletter correction
There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Issue 38, January – April 2020
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020
- New partnership
- Global roundup
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 May newsletter
The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.
Our top scorers in round 2 were:
- Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
- Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews- Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
- Lee Vilenski with 869 points,
Hog Farm with 801, Kingsif with 719, SounderBruce with 710, Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and 
MX with 515.
The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2019 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.
Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
- L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
- Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
- MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
- Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.- Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).
Invitation to participate in a discussion about publicly disclosing subscribers of TWL resources
Hi Cameron11598, I have started a discussion over our Village pump with the aim of maintaining a public list of all editors who are granted access to any TWL resource. Your thoughts and opinions on the proposal are welcome:-) Regards, ∯WBGconverse
Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi Cameron11598, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.
Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.
To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!
Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
PAs on Arb case request?
Could you please take a look at the comment by Xxxanthippe on the JzG case request? It seems to me that a large part of it is personal attacks, since no evidence is offered in support of serious allegations, violating WP:Casting aspersions. I don't believe that an ArbCom case request is exempted from that policy. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: You actually got me just as I was about to head to bed. I'll take a look, I may pass it along to clerks-l for someone else to handle as it's almost midnight my time. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I could be wrong... Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: You are spot on, its bright line enough I'm comfortable actioning without further input on clerks-l. Give me a few and it will be addressed. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: Actioned, and I've asked on clerks-l for the other clerks to keep a closer eye on this case request since that is the second clerk action I've taken in the last 12 hours on that request. With that I'm hitting the hay. Have a good night and happy editing. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 07:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking care of that so expeditiously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: Actioned, and I've asked on clerks-l for the other clerks to keep a closer eye on this case request since that is the second clerk action I've taken in the last 12 hours on that request. With that I'm hitting the hay. Have a good night and happy editing. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 07:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020
- Library Card Platform
- New partnerships
- ProQuest
- Springer Nature
- BioOne
- CEEOL
- IWA Publishing
- ICE Publishing
- Bytes in brief
On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
Hello Cameron11598,
- Your help can make a difference
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
- Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
- Discussions and Resources
- A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
- Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
- A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
- Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 July newsletter
The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:
- Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
- The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
- Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.
Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;- HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
- Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.
Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 40
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020
- New partnerships
- Al Manhal
- Ancestry
- RILM
- #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
- AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 40
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020
- New partnerships
- Al Manhal
- Ancestry
- RILM
- #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
- AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Press Inquiry: Climate change arbitration
Hi there,
I'm Alex Lubben, a reporter currently enrolled in Columbia's graduate school of journalism. (I was previously a reporter with Vice News.)
I'm working on a story about climate change on Wikipedia, and I'm hoping you might be willing to talk about how the arbitration process works, how it's been used to resolve debates around climate change, and give some context about cases that are currently going through / have recently gone through arbitration.
Would you be able to spare ~15 minutes to talk over the phone? Feel free to email alex.lubben@columbia.edu.
Thanks!
Alexlubbenvice (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Alexlubbenvice: Thanks for reaching out however due to a few of the roles I hold as a volunteer I'm subject to the Access to nonpublic personal data policy which makes me uncomfortable answering questions regarding things that stray into the confidentiality realm. Regards, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 November newsletter
The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by .svg){kind=small}
Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.
The other finalists were Hog Farm (submissions), HaEr48 (submissions), Harrias (submissions) and Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!
All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.
- Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
- Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
- Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
- Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
- MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
- The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
- Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 41
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020
- New partnership: Taxmann
- WikiCite
- 1Lib1Ref 2021
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello Cameron11598,
- Year in review
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
| Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DannyS712 bot III (talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 2 | Rosguill (talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 3 | John B123 (talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 4 | Onel5969 (talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 5 | JTtheOG (talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 6 | Mcampany (talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 8 | Mccapra (talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 9 | Hughesdarren (talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 10 | Utopes (talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
- Reviewer of the Year
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
- NPP Technical Achievement Award
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
|
Merry Christmas Cameron11598 |
|
Hi Cameron11598, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
Merry Christmas, Cam!!
.jpg)
.jpg)
Hello Cameron11598: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor Talk 16:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
,_cropped.jpg)
Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States abortion-rights movement § Description added. Elizium23 (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes - Issue 42
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020
- New EBSCO collections now available
- 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
- Library Card input requested
- Libraries love Wikimedia, too!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
WikiCup 2021 March newsletter
Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
- Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.- The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.- Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
- Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 42
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021
- New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
- 1Lib1Ref
- Library Card
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
WikiCup 2021 May newsletter
The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.
Our top scorers in Round 2 were:
- The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
- Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
- Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
- Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
- Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
- Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.- Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.
Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 43
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021
- New Library Card designs
- 1Lib1Ref May
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
WikiCup 2021 July newsletter
The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:
- The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
- Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
- Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
- Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
- Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.
In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| hihi, just a quick message, hope you're okay. Also barnstar because that's what the cool kids do - TheresNoTime 😺 22:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC) |
Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello Cameron11598:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1300 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.
Books & Bytes – Issue 45
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021
- Library design improvements continue
- New partnerships
- 1Lib1Ref update
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
WikiCup 2021 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are .svg){kind=small}
Gog the Mild, Lee Vilenski, 
BennyOnTheLoose, Amakuru and 
Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.
Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. .jpg){kind=small}
Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.
If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello Cameron11598,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 46
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021
- Library design improvements deployed
- New collections available in English and German
- Wikimania presentation
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
You have been pruned from a list
Hi Cameron11598! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed on the AFC's participants list, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 6 months. Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to regain access to the AFCH script, you can do so at any time by visiting WT:AFCP. Thank you for your work at AFC, and if you start editing Wikipedia again we hope you will rejoin us. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
November 2021 backlog drive
| New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
WikiCup 2021 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:
- The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
- Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
- Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points
- Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
- Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
- BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
- Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
- Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points
All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.
- The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
- Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
- Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
- The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
- The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
- Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.
If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 47
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021
- On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
- Search tool deployed
- New My Library design improvements
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)