Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 142: Line 142:
::::{{re|BU Rob13}} Ahh. I see. Looks like a mix up in terms, since the edit counter appears to be pulling from the so named [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=patrol&user=Timothyjosephwood&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= Partrol Log], which is a reference to pending changes and not NPP. Still, I'm seeing >250 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/pagetriage-deletion&dir=prev&offset=20160424143128&limit=250&user=Timothyjosephwood&type=pagetriage-deletion CSD noms], although admittely I'm not seeing where to check pages reviewed.
::::{{re|BU Rob13}} Ahh. I see. Looks like a mix up in terms, since the edit counter appears to be pulling from the so named [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=patrol&user=Timothyjosephwood&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= Partrol Log], which is a reference to pending changes and not NPP. Still, I'm seeing >250 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/pagetriage-deletion&dir=prev&offset=20160424143128&limit=250&user=Timothyjosephwood&type=pagetriage-deletion CSD noms], although admittely I'm not seeing where to check pages reviewed.
::::At any rate, I use Curation and in cases manual CSD templating almost exclusively, and Twinkle mostly/only for automating user warnings. So I guess I withdraw my withdrawal and resubmit my request. [[User:Timothyjosephwood|<span style="color:#a56d3f;font-family:Impact;">Timothy</span><span style="color:#6f3800;font-family:Impact;">Joseph</span><span style="color:#422501;font-family:Impact;">Wood</span>]] 14:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
::::At any rate, I use Curation and in cases manual CSD templating almost exclusively, and Twinkle mostly/only for automating user warnings. So I guess I withdraw my withdrawal and resubmit my request. [[User:Timothyjosephwood|<span style="color:#a56d3f;font-family:Impact;">Timothy</span><span style="color:#6f3800;font-family:Impact;">Joseph</span><span style="color:#422501;font-family:Impact;">Wood</span>]] 14:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
:::::Huh. Maybe {{U|MusikAnimal}} wants to take a look at this? You appear to meet the criteria for being grandfathered, and you meet the guidelines for granting in any case, so {{done}}. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 14:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


====[[User:Robert McClenon]]====
====[[User:Robert McClenon]]====

Revision as of 14:31, 1 November 2016

New page reviewer

Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Shortcuts
See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers for the granting guidelines. Applicants should show some evidence that they generally meet the guidelines outlined there, have a demonstrated need for the right, and that they have read and fully understood the tutorial at Wikipedia:New pages patrol.

User:Feinoha

I'm not sure how many patrols I've done since I joined in 2007 (as User:Vivio Testarossa), however I think that I'm pretty good with my ability to discern which pages should and shouldn't be marked as patrolled. Feinoha Talk 01:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — xaosflux Talk 11:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jayabilla

I gave more than 500 edits and almost getting the experiences from 2 months. Recently, I have been granted the "Extended confirmed user" right. Kinflyy consider me. Jayabilla (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Has 0 patrols or curration logs, has never used talk: or user_talk: pages. If you are interested in patrolling in the future, please review all of Wikipedia:New pages patrol first. — xaosflux Talk 14:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cameron11598

I do anti-vandalism patrol using twinkle and huggle, my understanding is if I request CSD or PROD a new article it will no longer be marked as patrolled, thus my request for the new permission. While I usually focus on CSDs for new articles I do occasionally tag them with maintenance tags. I don't use the curation tool much (I find it clunky) I tend to use Twinkle instead. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — xaosflux Talk 15:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:GeoffreyT2000

I have done many page curation reviews this year (2016) as well as last year (2015), and will need to apply so that I can continue using the page curation toolbar. My Twinkle CSD log is filled with lots of red links. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GeoffreyT2000: You marked Narek Aslanyan as reviewed, but it has currently been prodded. Could you comment on that article? ~ Rob13Talk 02:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: I marked it as reviewed after adding a linkrot tag to it. The article is now at AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GeoffreyT2000: I was more looking for a comment on it being reviewed but later nominated for AfD. The hope with new page patrolling is that questionable articles are caught and nominated for deletion if necessary. Do you think the article should be deleted? Would you do something differently if you reviewed the article again? ~ Rob13Talk 04:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: Yes, I will comment at the AfD. Anyway, there are 3 more articles I have marked as reviewed, namely University of South Dakota Sanford School of Medicine, which has a category added by its creator; Venkatraopet, Eluru, which needs additional references; and 2008 Breeders' Cup Classic, which does not have any issues AFAICT. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 14:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is borderline for me, so I'll leave it to another admin to provide a second opinion. ~ Rob13Talk 18:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - if you had done many patrols already you would have been on the list of editors to be grandfathered into this new user right. I also don't see where you answered this reasonable request from a fellow editor about an NAC AfD closure. Please continue to use the tools for a while for which you were very recently accorded other rights and reapply again in a month or so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yoshi24517

Xaosflux kind of told me to apply here, I have been reviewing pages for a while. Since the right is coming out soon, and I lose my acces to patrolling pages in the future. I'll request the right so I can continue to patrol new pages. My CSD log has a lot of red links also... Mostly from getting rid of old AfC Drafts. Yoshi24517Chat Online 01:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I gave directions as to where to apply - but have not personally reviewed Yoshi24517's patrols. — xaosflux Talk 01:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said kind of. :-) Yoshi24517Chat Online 02:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have two questions for you: How many patrols have you made in 2016 using the Page Curation Tool? Have you read the tutorial for new page reviewing and if so, when?--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kudpung, would have liked a ping, as I forgot to watchlist this page, but I think I've made about 50 this year. I do not remember for the life of me. Xaosflux said 60 earlier, and yes I have used Page Curation. I just reviewed a 13 year old submission a little while ago, to get that out of the backlog. If you look at my CSD log, I have all the articles as red links except 2. And yes, I have read the tutorial for new page reviewing, I just read it about a week ago. FYI, I still can review pages right now as they haven't gotten rid of the patrol flag for the autoconfirmed and extended confirmed users yet. Yoshi24517Chat Online 23:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done (for yet). I'm a little concerned about a) Your sporadic editing history, and b) concerns expressed about the way AfC works. As AfC and New Page Reviewing require similar skill sets, but as NPR is by far a more critical and important process, I would like to see a successful run at AfC reviewing and then I would consider a new application for NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Hey Kudpung, If I decide not to use AfC at all, (which I'm considering leaving), would that effect me at all to be guaranteed this right? Yoshi24517Chat Online 03:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Reviewing is actually more challenging and more demanding than AfC. It also carries a lot more responsibility. If you can master AfC for a while and get it right, then I would be happy to consider another application for NPR. It shouldn't take long. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ayub407

I believe that this user rights will be helpful to me. I've been reviewing new pages for a year now. Please refer to my CSD log. Thanks Ayub407talk 07:31,
You appear to have used the Page Curation tool only once in 2016. What other tasks do think belong to reviewing new pages besides tagging for speedy deletion? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, ensuring that it meets the guidelines of Wikipedia and free from copyvios. And I prefer to use twinkle for patrolling new pages over the Page Curation tool. Ayub407talk 17:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From your answer, you do not appear to be fully familiar with 50% of the scope of this task, or with the important additional features in the official Page Curation tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully familiar with changes applied and the scope of the task. I don't even mind if I'm required to use the Page Curation tools. The key thing for patrolling new pages is to ensure it meets the criteria of the Wikipedia (For example WP:N, WP:BLP, etc..), ensuring it does not meet any one of the inclusion criteria stated here, checking for any copyvios (For example 1, 2 and so on....), improving new articles by adding wikilinks, formant fixing, categorizing and so on and lastly helping out new users. I'll consider in moving pages to draft via the Page Curation tools if the article has the potential for it to be accepted by giving it's creator more time to improve it. Ayub407talk 13:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One more point to add, I am aware and willing to face the vast amount of responsibilities if granted the New page reviewer rights. I will utilize it to the fullest for the betterment of the encyclopedia. I have read and understood the guidelines of this user rights. Ayub407talk 15:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dps04

I am an active new page patroller, tagging articles for maintenance and deletion whenever appropriate. I intend to continue my work as a NPP, and I believe I have demonstrated sufficient familiarity with Wikipedia's policy on deletion and article tags to merit this right. Thank you. Dps04 (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from tagging for deletion, wjat other tasks do you belive are part of the new Page reviewer remit?--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I generally focus on tagging articles for proposed / speedy deletion whenever appropriate, occasionally I do add article tags, stub tags or manually improve an article so it complies with the policies, before marking the article patrolled. These are, in my opinion, within the remit of NPPs. Additionally, although I admit I rarely did this before, mis-titled articles should be moved before marked as patrolled. --Dps04 (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have only used the Page Curation tool 3 times. Reviewers are needed who are also generally prepared to undertake the other important 50% of the reviewer tasks besides rapid ragging for deletion. Can you confirm that you have read the new, updated tutorial for New Page Reviewer? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been using page curation until very recently, because I was comfortable with patrolling pages in Special:NewPages manually, using Twinkie. I am aware of the advantages of Page curation over manual patrolling (e.g. it does list a lot more information about an article), and I don't see a problem switching to page curation if I am required to. With regards to the "new, updated tutorial", if you are referring to Wikipedia:New pages patrol, then yes, I have read it in its entirety. At the end of the day, I think the whole point of your question is to confirm whether I understand (1) patrolling new pages does not only mean marking pages for deletion, but also entails tagging articles for maintenance and engaging in article cleanups in accordance with the policies, and (2) the NPP right comes with hefty responsibilities, and users granted with it are expected to possess sufficient, if not extensive knowledge on wikipedia's policies on deletion, maintenance, and manual of style, just to name a few. If I haven't misrepresented you, and this indeed is what you were trying to ask, then yes, I believe I have read and understood the duties expected of a NPP. --Dps04 (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I may add, I also take note of the importance of NPPs being able to communicate well with new page creators, particularly new users. I believe I have also done so in several previous occasions. Cheers, Dps04 (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:KGirlTrucker81

I still patrol new pages to keep out of Wikipedia from turning into LinkedIn or Facebook. also, my CSD log has a bunch a redlinks. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 10:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please confirm that you have read and fully understood the scope of New Page Reviewer as detailed in the new tutorial? Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gestrid

As someone active in anti-vandalism (which involves dealing with a lot of new pages), and I believe I would be good at performing NPP. I'm actually very much in the same boat as Cameron11598 (the request above this one) is. I've also answered lots of questions over at the Teahouse, which, for those who don't know, is a place for new users to come and ask almost any question and get it answered by an experienced editor. — Gestrid (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated my application to include more about my interactions with new users. — Gestrid (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Irondome

I request permission for New Page Reviewer. I have been on WP since 2012, with over 13,600 manual edits. I already have rollback and pending changes rights. I have not abused these tools. I believe I am in good standing with the community, and have a good grasp of new page patrolling. I would like to contribute to this sometimes thankless task more, and request permission for it. It would certainly assist my further usefulness to the project, and I believe I would make a responsible job of it. I have been following closely the rationale and discussion behind the changes that Kudpung has successfully initiated, and I agree with the reform. I confirm that I have read and understood the updated guidance. Lastly, I am familiar with the mechanics of the curation tool, and I believe I have used it correctly in the past, and as an experienced user can identify a viable new article when presented, while identifying areas for constructive improvement with sensitivity. Equally I would not hesitate to recommend speedy deletion to problomatic contributions. I would like to expand my activity in this area, as it is a critical job for all volunteers who wish to expand their usefulness to the project. It would also be beneficial for any RfA request that I may attempt in the future, as it would give the community more evidence of my abilities or lack of. Regards, Irondome (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure if we have that bot removing extraneous headers from requests on this page yet, so I went ahead and manually removed one from this request. — Gestrid (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gestrid: The bot is off for this page right now - if everything goes right should be on by tomorrow. — xaosflux Talk 11:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sandgem Addict

Seeking NPP rights to continue with New Page Patrol. I have been occasionally new page patrolling on and off for most of this year, taking the time to ensure I am 100% confident as to the decision I am making in relation to a page, due to the nature of the role to the operation of Wikipedia. While I, at one point earlier this year, did make a mistake by tagging a A7 without allowing sufficent time for further work on the article to be done, I have learnt from this - other than this, I haven't been involved in any issues while NPPing. I confirm that I have re-read the NPP tutorial, and am aware of the seriousness of the role towards both new editors and preventing inappropriate pages from entering the encyclopedia. sandgemADDICT yeah? 05:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From your talk page and its archives I do not seem to find much evidence of interaction with other users that could confirm that you would be able to communicate with the required style. Have you perhaps done any reviewing at AFC? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[1]; [2]; [3] - three I just completed. In all three I feel I clearly indicated the rationale for declining the submissions, and indicated how each article could be improved to meet the required standards for submission. -- sandgemADDICT yeah? 06:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those three reviews ufortunately do not convey, for me at least, that you have sufficient experience.Also you have responded to my question concerning your talk pageNew Page Reviewers are the editors who are most frequently the first to be in direct contact with new users - could you please explain how they (or anyone else) can consult your talk page archives?
Asking for a second opinion from another administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yellow Dingo

I've made many patrols over my time here. I believe I have the experience to use this right with responsibility and precision. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xyzspaniel

To continue my patrolling of new pages which, I do most days, I confirm that I have read the NPP guidelines XyzSpaniel Talk Page 20:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question: all but 291 of your mainspace edits which are mostly vandalism reverts were made after the RfC for NPR was announced in October. Mainspace edits currently stand at 741. Could you point me to the archives of the 115 or so movements on your talk page? Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Kudpung กุดผึ้ง I don't currently archive my talk - everything is available on the page history to anyone who wishes to read it (less 2 rude comments from a disgruntled vandal hidden by an admin) there aren't any arguments or anything like that in there, I'm just an old timer that likes to keep my page clean and up to date XyzSpaniel Talk Page 08:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - for now. You were only granted both Rollbacker and PC Reviewer tights a few days ago. Please continue to work on vandalism and recent changes for a while and then reapply for Page Reviewer in a month or so and we'll see how you've been doing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Finngall

Long-time, if light-duty, patroller, working manually. My work is admittedly heavy on the speedy-tagging and lighter on the application of other maintenance tags and/or deeper editing. Plenty of work at AfD, SPI, and general vandalism cleanup. --Finngall talk 00:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Esmost

I regularly tag articles and it would be really cool to tag/approve articles before they get patrolled, and as a huge supporter of userfication, getting a chance to determine whether an article is destined to go to the purgatory of Wikipedia servers, draft, subpages of users, or simply in the mainstream, would be really cool. Є𐌔ⲘО𐌔𐍄 𐍄𐌀ℓК 00:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Please review the tutorial at WP:NPP and all its linked pages - you'l see that it's not actually a 'cool' job at all, but one which needs a very mature approach. Then apply again when you have more experience at general editing and vandalism patrol. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Godsy

I would like to retain the ability to patrol pages. Most of the pages I patrol are not in the article namespace, and the vast majority are "manual" patrols. That aside, when I do choose to patrol new articles: I don't much care for the new pages feed and curation toolbar, preferring the old school new pages, so my logs that rely to the former tools will be sparse. I understand when a page should be marked as patrolled, and I think WP:NPPLOG does a great job of generally summarizing it. I've held other advanced user rights such as template editor, file mover, and page mover for a while without any problems arising in regard to my use of them. I meet all of the guidelines for granting; seemingly #2, though "page quality control" is rather vague.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dane2007

I frequently use the page curation tool in combination with other tools like Huggle and Twinkle to tag pages with issues, nominate CSDs, AfDs, and PRODs. I would like the new user right to continue my antivandalism work as well as my manual patrolling of pages. I have also reviewed WP:NPP as well since the October RfC changes.-- Dane2007 talk 04:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mz7

I'm Mz7. I've been working with new users for several years now at venues like AfC and the Teahouse. I understand the importance of WP:DONTBITE; in every interaction with a new contributor, I make it my goal to actually explain the relevant policies and why we have them, rather than just pointing to a mystical all-caps link. I am familiar with the Page Curation Tool as well as the deletion process, although my activity level is smaller across all areas of Wikipedia this year due to some new real life commitments. I believe I would be able to competently patrol review new pages and offer advice to new editors on how their pages could be improved (or how future pages could be improved, if their first efforts did not meet minimum encyclopedic standards). Mz7 (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed wording, as I understand the terminology is changing to "new page review" to better reflect the nature of the work that's done. Mz7 (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — MusikAnimal talk 05:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thomas.W

I apparently don't meet the grandfathering requirements for "new page patroller", but since I fairly regularly review new pages as part of the general janitorial work I do here, I would appreciate getting the new user right. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Patient Zero

I work on Twinkle and Huggle most of the time, and would like to retain my previous ability to review pages, as I would've done with CSD nominations, for example. I have never been blocked, and have over 8,000 edits - of which over 2,000 are in the mainspace. Patient Zerotalk 13:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timothyjosephwood

I'm really surprised that this is apparently being done all manually? I thought there was a consensus to grandfather in most experienced reviewers/RC stalkers, but apparently not. TimothyJosephWood 13:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Request withdrawn, I think? Looks like it's probably unnecessary for me to apply. TimothyJosephWood 14:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothyjosephwood: You aren't on the grandfathered list. If you don't patrol via the page curation tool, that's why. ~ Rob13Talk 14:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: Ahh. I see. Looks like a mix up in terms, since the edit counter appears to be pulling from the so named Partrol Log, which is a reference to pending changes and not NPP. Still, I'm seeing >250 CSD noms, although admittely I'm not seeing where to check pages reviewed.
At any rate, I use Curation and in cases manual CSD templating almost exclusively, and Twinkle mostly/only for automating user warnings. So I guess I withdraw my withdrawal and resubmit my request. TimothyJosephWood 14:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Maybe MusikAnimal wants to take a look at this? You appear to meet the criteria for being grandfathered, and you meet the guidelines for granting in any case, so  Done. ~ Rob13Talk 14:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon

I am primarily an AFC reviewer, and I know what to look for in both draft space and main space. If I already have this right, then I already have it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sir Joseph

I use AFC and oftentimes manually patrol NPP area. My CSD log shows I know how to use the tools appropriately. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 14:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/New_page_reviewer&oldid=747284260"