This is an archive of past discussions with User:PaleoNeonate. 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.
Hope you are doing well! Thank you for using our tool, and giving us feedback for improvement. We've made some improvements, and are preparing to send another round of recommendations for your project. But before that, we are considering two possible factors to implement into our algorithms potentially, and wonder what's your opinion on them.
1. Small project promotion. An editor who has a wide range of subject interest can be recommended to multiple projects according to our current algorithms. When this happens, do you think it matters to make choices among those projects, i.e., should we prioritize on those smaller projects, just randomly choose one project, or do you have other thoughts?
2. Female editor promotion. Gender imbalance has been a long-term issue in Wikipedia which consequently caused the uncoverage of many female related topics. What do you think about the idea of promoting more female editors in the recommendation list? Bobo.03 (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Bobo.03: Hello again, I'm doing fine, thanks! I will try to answer but I also want to make clear that these are only my opinions as I've not followed any related statistics.
Considering that a suggested user may or may not suit for a project, it may make sense to suggest them for more projects, rather than only a random one. About smaller or larger projects, it's difficult to tell as there are multiple factors: is the project small because it's never been successful? New editors may feel very lonely there instead of kickstarting and managing them. I also remember of an editor saying that most semi-active (or dead) projects are unlikely to eventually really be revived.
This may be related to the project I'm most active in, WP:SKEPTIC, but my impression is that competency is more important than gender (and there's of course no reason for a female to be less competent). If statistics still show that we need more female editors on Wikipedia in general and that they often need kickstarting help (as any new user would), then I think that yes, it would make sense to take particular steps to improve their experience and integration.
Thank you for your thoughts. I think that's something I am looking for - just your intuition about these issues. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
@Bobo.03: I'm glad if my input is useful. By the way, I'm sorry for not participating earlier in relation to the Signpost; there were two reasons: lack of time and my impression that the particular situation for WP:SKEPTIC might not have been representative enough, so I didn't really know what to write. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello PaleoNeonate, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
New Year Backlog Drive results:
We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!
General project update:
ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Ayurveda
Hello PaleoNeonate. FYI. Another page protection has occurred at Ayurveda, so no one can edit the article until Feb 21. There may be some movement in permitting freer editing of Ayurveda, which has been basically blocked and WP:OWN owned by a few restrictive editors for years. See these 3 Talk discussions, #1, and #2, and #3. Lots of fallout and potential changes, hopefully beneficial for factual medical information, seem to be developing, so let's see what unfolds. --Zefr (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Nothing changes. John remains the most frustrating of admins per his comments at Peter Coxhead's Talk, which I only now have seen. His silly sanctions have meant that there have been no substantive improvements to the article for years. be careful, I believe it was before your time Paleo. -Roxy, the dog.barcus20:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Recommending new editors to your WP Skepticism
Hi PaleoNeonate,
Our system generated a list of potential new editors for your project. They may be interested in collaborating with your project members on your project's articles. As you will notice, the list contains both experienced editors and newcomers. Both are valuable for Wikipedia and your project. Please go ahead and introduce your project to them, and point them to some project tasks to start with. We also provide a template invitation message to make it easier to contact the potential new editors. Just click the invite link to write the invitation message.
We'd appreciate it if you could fill the survey to let us know what you think about our recommendations so we can improve our system.
Loren ipsum edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Loren ipsum and your project member PSWG1920 (talk · contribs) edited 1 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits.
Cbuccella edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Cbuccella and your project member Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) edited 1 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits.
Deathflyer's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Society, and most of your project's articles also fall under this category. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!
BurgundySimpson's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Society and Arts, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!
Insley edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Insley and your project member Tathar (talk · contribs) edited 1 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits.
Pyrodney edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Pyrodney and your project member Selmo (talk · contribs) edited 1 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits.
Aufbakanleitung's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Society and Religion, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!
Currawong2007's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Society, and most of your project's articles also fall under this category. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!
@Bobo.03: I'm sorry, I've been so busy with work lately that my on-WP time is limited. I have just written Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Starting which is also now transcluded as part of the WP:SKEPTIC main page. As it's been a while since the last suggestions, I'll have to review again the invitation form and as needed adapt it to also point to this resource. I'll try to report soon about the above suggestions. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Bobo.03: I started looking at the contributions of the above editors while taking notes. I'll likely have the survey ready soon (24-72h from now to be safe). Thanks again and sorry for the delay, —PaleoNeonate – 05:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey PaleoNeonate, thank you for letting me know! Yeh, please take your time. As you might have noticed, some editors on the list are not active enough (just edited once or so in the last month, ideally active editors should edit more than 5 times in the past month) - apologize that I introduced a bug in the previous version. I will send you an updated list in a day or two! Bobo.03 (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
COrmsbee1 edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, COrmsbee1 and your project member Cluskillz (talk · contribs) edited 3 of the same articles in their most recent 68 edits.
Shaneam12 edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Shaneam12 and your project member K50 Dude (talk · contribs) edited 3 of the same articles in their most recent 47 edits.
Edfallere's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Society and Geography, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!
Zyxw43211's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Society and People, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!
Darryl.P.Pike's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Geography and Society, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!
KilGrave's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category People and Geography, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!
GeorgeofOrange edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, GeorgeofOrange and your project member John from Idegon (talk · contribs) edited 4 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits.
Hwood777 edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Hwood777 and your project member Tewapack (talk · contribs) edited 12 of the same articles in their most recent 236 edits.
Recommending new editors to WikiProject Skepticism
Hi PaleoNeonate,
Here is a new list of recommendations for project Skepticism. Sorry that I introduced some bugs in the previous version as I mentioned, but everything has been fixed. I might be sending one or two more new lists to you in the coming Mondays, and hope you'll find great new members!
We'd appreciate it if you could fill the survey to let us know what you think about our recommendations so we can improve our system.
Scruple edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Scruple and your project member PaleoNeonate (talk · contribs) edited 3 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits.
Antepali edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Antepali and your project member Silence (talk · contribs) edited 3 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits.
Ignostic199's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Society and People, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!
Ffffafsd's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Society and Geography, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!
Atvelonis edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Atvelonis and your project member FT2 (talk · contribs) edited 3 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits.
Cyrej edited articles similar to articles your project members edited. For example, Cyrej and your project member FT2 (talk · contribs) edited 3 of the same articles in their most recent 500 edits.
Estregger's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Society and Arts, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!
Feathrlessbiped's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Society and People, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!
Hi PaleoNeonate, please take a look at those recommendations if you have a chance. I would also help invite some new members, but they are not the ones on this list. Bobo.03 (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.
Paid editing
Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.
News
The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
You're probably going to think I'm some kind of idiot--and who knows--you could be right! But I got a message you had left a comment on my talk page and it's not there. I am hoping you didn't change your mind and delete it! We were looking for your participation with our article--if you want--working with Gråbergs has been great and we're proud of the product. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello again Jenhawk777, you're of course welcome to post here. I actually believed that I was on the humor in the Bible article when I signed the post. While I did receive the invitation I did not yet have time to review the article. My Wikipedia presence is unfortunately sparse and unpredictable lately because of work. I also have no personal experience with GA review (I can roughly recognize Start, C and B class articles) although it's among my future interests. I therefore could not perform a GA review at current time, sorry about that. —PaleoNeonate – 00:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh good! I am glad to hear back from you! It's okay, there are others able to do an actual review, but we have enough respect for your opinion we would welcome any input you had. I certainly understand only being here when you can and there are probably lots of other things you'd rather be doing than reviewing someone else's work, but if you feel like it, having you participate would be cool. If not, that's cool too. Thank you for responding. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Paleo, I didn't intend that you should do the review, that would be some weird lobbying. What I wondered was are you interested in helping us when the review gets going, since none of us has ever tried for GA before. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleting sources because of the language
Hi! I can see you deleted a bibliography I have added in an article on Matter. It seems you don't like it because it is in French. And you give me a link in Wikipedia (Further reading) to learn. I am new in Wikipedia as contributor. After many years of being a passive reader, I decided that is time to help other readers. I have a PhD in Physics, and Professor at the University. I have written many journal articles and chapter books, so I know how important is to have good sources. At the same time, nowadays, you have to get information from other languages if you want to learn. Myself I can read/write/understand English, French, and Spanish. I use in my articles and books always references in many languages. So, I don't understand your criticism. At the same time, I went to the link you indicated me (and other sub-links there), and nothing says about sources in different languages. As I said, I am new in Wikipedia, and I need to learn how to improve Wikipedia. I will invest my time in learning, and in improving the wonderful idea of Wikipedia. I will appreciate your advise in this matter. But, also, I will appreciate in this punctual case that you can justify that the reference I have included is not useful. I read it, and it is perfect for general reference. I might try in the future to improve also the article on Matter. In the meantime, I am trying to make small and easy contributions, and references (I believe) are the easiest ones to make. Specially in those articles where the references are scarce. Please, revert the changes and include again the reference. Thank you. Triboscience (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello Triboscience. I have the impression that DVdm may be the user you wanted to contact. Even better may be to open a thread about it on the relevant article for consensus to form there and be visible to everyone (WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS). In case it could help, some relevant material related to links and references are WP:ELNO, WP:CITE, WP:PRIMARY. If you are the author, or are affiliated with some publications, WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION may be relevant (a typical sign is promoting the same source in multiple articles which is likely to be considered suspect and be reverted). In relation to the language, French sources can certainly be used when necessary (and I can read French so could assess their relevance). I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 03:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 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.
Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.
Backlog drive:
A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
Editathons
There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
Paid editing - new policy
Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
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, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
News
Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Hi. I hope you are well. I came actoss Priyanka Upendra, and it has something broken in it. I couldnt find it as I am on mobile. Would you please take a look at it? Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran(talk)08:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello PaleoNeonate, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.
Thank you for being so kind and helpful. You helped edit a draft that I thought no one would even look at, you gave me good advice in a talk section, and you welcomed me on my talk page. You have been the nicest person on this site that I have met so far. Thank you. Wyrm127 (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@Wyrm127: thank you. I think that it's part of our responsibilities as editors to help when we can. Although I cannot guarantee a quick response, feel free to ask if you need help; another good resource is the teahouse. —PaleoNeonate – 23:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
A not important question
You said in your user page "Although I was raised as a fundamentalist creationist, I have grown out of it over time through education, critical thinking and knowledge; I am now an agnostic with naturalist pantheistic tendencies, who has long ceased to believe in the supernatural." If you don't believe in the supernatural, wouldn't that also make you an atheist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyrm127 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Some agnostics can be said to also, or mostly be atheist, others less so. It's of course a personal matter, but in my case, I have little reason to believe in any of the gods of the great religions (understanding their human origin), with the idea that a person out there cares about humans and interferes with their activities being very unlikely.
On the other hand, I could consider some experiences I lived (and some emotions) to be of a "spiritual" nature (that is, per my own definition of spirituality). I understand that these still originate from neurology. If it seems confusing, I'm confused myself about the matter. While I'm part of no religious group, my weak naturalist pantheist tendencies are likely the result of my need to fantasize and I find this inspirational.
I also think that some rituals can be healthy (birth celebrations, passing of age recognition and funeral, for instance) no matter their origin, and that those can be adapted and subsist in secular societies, as they are also related to the basic fears and needs from which religious practices originated.
By using agnostic, I admit that agnostic atheism is similar and I have the impression that it is close to how science considers it: it's difficult to disprove something that cannot be falsified while there's no need to put more efforts than necessary to attempt to prove the undetectable (and possibly the impossible), especially when better explanations are being discovered...
Lastly, it's possible that I may prefer to use atheist someday. My transition from religion was gradual; when I understood as a teen that the religion I was raised in could not be "the true one", my search for truth lasted many years. This included practicing various meditation forms, studying the world religions, occult and magic systems, etc. Although there were interesting aspects to all that, there was an eventual loss of interest. Then I studied the biblical scriptures again from a more scholarly perspective and grew to understand how they originated and were compiled.
Interestingly, a sudden near-fatal medical incident (with full recovery, fortunately) then caused me to read a lot on medicine and eventually on biology and other natural sciences. That's when I finally was open to learn and understand how life diversified (that was only around ten years ago). Although I always was curious and wanted to learn, without proper direction more time was spent than necessary to get there. It's also interesting how one can be versed in particular sciences and have no idea about the importance of evolution in biology or how it works...
Can someone be banned for spreading pseudoscience? The user 2600:1010:B149:71E0:463:2C:4C65:6DBF has mostly done only that[1] I think he/she created his/her account today, since his/her only edits are for today. So far, he/she has shown that he/she believes that fluoride cannot be found naturally in water, Wikipedia editors are trying to deceive and brainwash people, fluoride is put in water to poison and control people, plants do not absorb fluoride, fluoride does not prevent tooth decay, dentists are in on the conspiracy, coconut oil is perfect for keeping your gums healthy, teeth heal themselves, our entire skeletons completely heal themselves every ten years, the only studies done on fluoride for the teeth were by an aluminum company, selling fluoride is a form of genocide, Nazis used fluoride in concentration camps, the use of fluoride in water is illegal, fluoride is used to harm the pineal gland (which is apparently your third eye) to stop you from accessing limitless hidden senses, films are trustworthy sources, alternative medicine isn't pseudoscience, the MMR vaccine causes autism, Wakefield worked on the MMR vaccine, vaccine are poisonous, vaccines are not mainstream, the levels of sometimes toxic things in vaccines are dangerous, stories on an anti-vaxxer website are trustworthy and are evidence against vaccines, and there is a giant conspiracy by the government, pharmacies, and places that offer free flu shots. He/she seems like he/she could become a problem. seeing that they did all of this in one day and seven edits. I wanted to know if this spread of false information is worthy of a ban, and if so, how to get him/her banned. Wyrm127 (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello again. Thanks for noticing, those edits do appear problematic. The first step would be to revert their contribution(s) and to issue an appropriate warning on their page. There are some tools to help do that, like Twinkle, or this can be done using the templates found at WP:WARN and WP:WARN2 (the latter are designed for gradual escalation). Once a user persists despite warnings, if it is obvious vandalism, they can be reported at WP:AIV (administrators intervention against vandalism). If the situation is more complex, they can be reported at WP:ANI (administrators incident noticeboard). Usually a temporary block will result when necessary.
When a particular page is being targetted repeatedly, it's possible to request that this page be temporarily protected at WP:RFPP (request for page protection). Patrolling and reporting require patience: to keep the site open as possible, incidents are handled on a case-by-case basis.
If there is evidence an editor comes back to evade blocks which are still pending (using other IP addresses or accounts), a report can be filed at WP:SPI (sockpuppet investigations). In some cases, instead of only a single IP address, IP address ranges can be blocked (administrators will determine when that is warranted).
As you can see on the user's talk page, some warnings have been issued. In many cases, they stop just when they risk getting reported.
For more regular users which edit in sensitive topic areas, they can be warned about existing arbitration discretionary sanctions if any (WP:ARBPS in case of pseudoscience related topics, see the {{Ds/alert}} template). This type of message is not necessarily a block warning, but once notified it's possible to report a user at WP:AE (arbitration discretionary sanctions enforcement).
If you would like to bring particular problematic articles to the attention of other editors who have an interest in fringe topics, notices can be issued at WP:FTN, the fringe topics noticeboard (the WP:SKEPTIC WikiProject also has its WT:SKEPTIC talk page but tends to have less traffic). I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 08:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Adding: This particular case was not a created account but anonymous IP address editing (IPv4 addresses have the format n.n.n.n while IPv6 ones have a longer hexadecimal representation with : separators, like in this case. At places like AIV mentioned above, a different template is used for IP addresses (i.e. {{IPVandal}}). —PaleoNeonate – 08:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
He has been blocked for 3 days and the protection (which article was not specified) was set to PC1 for a month.[2] Hopefully he doesn't continue to do what he has done after his block ends.
I've yet to see a single thread on that page that was intended solely for the purpose of generalize discussion. Things get off track because we're humans working together, and humans working together socialize. You shouldn't have to defend your starting the thread, because the editors who come along to complain every time they see others enjoying themselves are the problem; not the editors enjoying themselves. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure, thanks for the support, that is very appreciated. I don't feel bad about it, but thought I should still thank the editor, of course. —PaleoNeonate – 16:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmm adding: I also had an impression that someone may not have liked the fun, with NOTFORUM application more useful to prevent endless POV pushing loops at article-specific talk pages. We indeed tend to keep a more relaxed attitude with FTN, with a POV that is not that of the lunatic charlatans. Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 16:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
The most serious and humorless skeptics I've found are also those skeptics most likely to be wrong in and about their skepticism. They reflect poorly upon the rest of us and undercut what we do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.12:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Today I learned that there is a Skeptoid template. Also, edit conflicted with you on restoring the date. *chuckle* --tronvillain (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Tronvillain: Haha, I only realized once I clicked on the thank notice's "view edit". At some point all mainspace Skeptoid podcast links were converted to use the template, although this would likely need to be done again since. Some Skeptoid links were left alone as they pointed to blog entries or other pages of the website. I don't remember how I found the template, but there was some need to alter it back then, which is how I got involved with it. Likely when I was doing a lot of routine citation cleanup... —PaleoNeonate – 22:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for welcoming me in!
Thank you for welcoming me into WikiProject Citation cleanup. I'd already done quite a share of cleanup before joining, but it feels good to be among peers who enjoy it as well. I know how important citations are here—many come to Wikipedia almost solely for them—so I want to continue to do my part to help make them as readable and informative as possible. :) TheTechnician27 (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
You're most welcome, thanks for the thanks. I see that you already had excellent advice about citations on your talk page. —PaleoNeonate – 05:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Message you sent me
First off I'm sorry if this isn't the correct way to reply to the message you left on my talk page but I was unable to find a reply button. I am utterly confused by the message and was wondering if you could translate it into English so to speak thanks LordFluffington454 (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@LordFluffington454: sure. Arbitration Discretionary Sanctions were special measures established to encourage communication and dispute resolution rather than "edit warring". They are used for sensitive topics easily attracting conflict (there are different measures and warning templates for various subjects, details are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active_sanctions). What we call edit warring is persisting in reverting or inserting material repeatedly in the same article when other editors revert them. So far I think that you are doing the right thing: attempting an edit, then communicating in attempt to form consensus on the relevant article's talk page, rather than restoring your edits when they are contested (relevant reading: WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:3RR, WP:1RR). So I think that you are doing the right thing, but since we must be especially careful when editing about those topics I have sent you the standard notice for WP:ARBPS (those relating to pseudoscience).
Adding: the Wikipedia editor community is made of people of many backgrounds and beliefs. People are not blocked or banned for their beliefs, but may be for technical reasons to prevent disruption, edit warring, etc. Since articles must summarize the sources, we must carefully select sources. In relation to evolution for instance, the experts are the notable biologists and science related articles have little to no non-expert opinions (considered WP:FRINGE in that area). On an article about a creationism or religious topic, the article should mostly be about that topic (it's not a scientific article), but should also reflect the mainstream view of academic scholars on the subject. We must also avoid primary sources when possible and prefer secondary and tertiary sources (which help to determine the weight/selection of secondary sources). Then from there we can work on the article text using those sources, and finally on the article's lead which should be a summary of the important parts of the article's body. All that is made through collaboration and consensus, etc. I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 12:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Sheldrake article
Hi,
Thanks for your message. Can you please give me a link to the guidance to which you refer as it's not clear to me.
best
AJO--A J O'Malley (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
@A J O'Malley: Please see the thread immediately above this one, which was also related to pseudoscience. If you would like to restore your edits, per WP:BRD you may want to discuss the issues at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake. Communication is as important as editing on Wikipedia. There also is a temporary thread open at WP:FTN#Rupert Sheldrake if the article's talk page does not have enough participants. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Madurai Adheenam edits
I don’t get why you removed my edits. They are factual and provide important information. I was authorized to make these edits on behalf of Swami Nithyananda. Currently the page is defamatory as it doesn’t contain factual information and no balance. I am strenuously objecting to your interference . Jasilove (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jasilove: if you are related to Nithyananda or his organization, please see WP:COI about conflict of interest. The edit also had technical issues like breaking a title's name. But this discussion should occur at Talk:Swami Nithyananda: please see WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS; then attempt to form consensus for your changes at its talk page when they are contested. Thank you, —PaleoNeonate – 03:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Good evening @PaleoNeonate:, I didn't understand the "grammar issues" motivated your undid revision. Mainly, religionS at the moment aren't a unique one.
When religions will be the same faith for all persons, we will have to take the correct consequences, about the article.
The last sentence of your comment is a possible opinion, not true for all believers, nor true for many living believers and scientists.
Lastly, the following introductory sentence is clearly POV, in contrast with one of the five pillars of Wikipedia (the second), and with some bivalent meanings (e.g. "outgrowth" in respect of more neutral synonyms):
"There is general agreement among cognitive scientists that religion is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved early in human history. "
@Micheledisaverio: "Religion" can be used to mean all religions as a phenomenon. The "agreed that religions are the products of brain architectures" also appeared strange: "the product" (the result of) was fine. Apart from English, it may also be misleading to claim that only some scientists understand that religion is a product of the brain (which also explains its many variations and its conflicts with reality). In Wikipedia, we tend to present the mainstream view as facts (WP:YESPOV). I agree that there's no current edit war about this, although per WP:BRD proper procedure would be to reach concensus on the article's talk page if edits are contested. We should therefore pursue the discussion there rather than at my talk page (so more editors could participate). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Good night (morning)@PaleoNeonate: I think there exist other words worse than "product", even if I agree "the result of" close is fine. You may change it directly. I think there isn't an exigence of discussion about a POV or/and unreferenced, introductory sentence. For this reason, I believe that we don't need a discussion for changing any single sentence: furtherly, in this case there is an addition of appropriate Wikilinks, and closely similar to the previous version.
In my opinion, Your choice "the result of" represents a better choice for the article. I suggest to finalize it.
I apologize for some imperfections in the lexical choices. I will do my best.
I am saving a previous section of the questioned article, where, helped by an always expert friend (whose single name is Michael, like my first username of Wikipedia), we found two reliable sources for the introductory sentence about human's main relatives. Perhaps, relating to the subparagraph "evolutionary psychology of religion", I have not found yet, but it may be in a next time.Best regards.Micheledisaverio (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@ @MjolnirPants:, thank You for your intervention. I agree with You
and Paleoneonate that "the result of" will be a more contextualized expression.
@ @PaleoNeonate: I thought You want directly to change the sentence. I have now added the "result of" proposal, instead of "a product of", in the article.
This topic has been limited to the first introductory sentence. Maybe useful, if You have some other edits, we open a new topic in the discussion page of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Micheledisaverio (talk • contribs) 05:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello again Micheledisaverio. Please remember to sign your posts. Although it's an essay, the spirit of WP:BRD is a good guideline: feel free to perform bold edits. If they are contested (like the first one), then you did the right thing by discussing it (although the next time the article's talk page would be the best place). Not all edits are likely to be contested, at least hopefully. —PaleoNeonate – 06:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
as recommended, I will sign my topics on the single articles' discussion page, if any edit will be likely to be contested by other WP users-contributors. Micheledisaverio (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Donald Trump baby balloon
For some reason, everytime I see it on my watchlist I think of "Donald Trump Babylon"... But I so far resisted creating a redirect. —PaleoNeonate – 06:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Also thanks but can you help me
You left a comment on my talk page i am new to wikipedia i replied to you on my talk page but i don't know how to contact you for a reply lol
also if i log in will my talk page be different? or will it still be registered under this IP?
Thanks for leaving a reply on my talk page, bro. I can see from your talk page that you put a lot of effort in helping people.
However, i would like to suggest that you extend your humility towards other species than mankind. (paleo from what i understand isn't particularly life friendly)
Sorry if this offends in any way. Or if this breaks any wikipedia rules. I don't know if you have an inbox or anything would you care to throw me some ropes on this wikipedia editing thing?
Sincerely,
me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.84.247 (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
This was the right place to contact me. I will reply back on your IP address's page (where I left the aforementionned message before). About humility towards other species than mankind, they indeed deserve to live as much as we do and are much closer to us than we tend to realize. My user page (User:PaleoNeonate) explains why I chose this nickname. —PaleoNeonate – 13:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to say i really appreciate the help ^
Hey man i just wanted to leave this so other people know how helpful you've been. If i could measure it in % it would be 1000%
You left a very well informed introduction and answered every question i had and could have for the next month of editing wikipedia :)
I appreciate the time you put into that. An anecdote here: if we start sciencing the unsciencable i'd like to repay you. (magic).
We'll keep in touch, maybe. I shall sign into my account today probably and leave a marker on my other talk page. Thanks for responding! Great stuff :)
--159.100.84.247 (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Welcome. Hmm I don't have the time to read all the Astral Projection talk page comments right now, but it reminds me of a former "me", almost 30 years ago. I did/do experience the phenomenon (three variants of it), but have come to an understanding that they are personal experiences that don't confirm the existence of actual collective spaces/realms and don't allow objective/verifiable meeting places and communication with other people. Metaphysics models are entertaining but they indeed are pseudoscience (this does not make them uninteresting, of course). —PaleoNeonate – 15:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh and adding: the more "physical" variant, often called "etheric", also never allowed me to objectively "see" the physical world beyond the room I was in. Longer-distance experiences, when not in imaginary worlds, were in a more or less faithful copy of reality derived from memory, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 15:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, in the 'By individuals' section of this article, citations 66–69 link to the websites rather than articles about them. Should these be removed too? Thanks.
–– ljhenshall(talk page)02:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ljhenshall: hello. That's a good point, I've not checked the other sources. You also do not appear to be a spammer and as such I didn't really understand the addition of the Qwant link. The problem with it was that it pointed to a search engine's main page, not to any particular page (perhaps mistakenly?) It seemed suspect and I reverted it (before checking your edits history) for that reason; it seemed like promotion for a website. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)
Hello PaleoNeonate, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
June backlog drive
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers. Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
New technology, new rules
New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
Editathons
Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
The Signpost
The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.
hello, please don´t edit a page you have zero knowledge about, thanks, is that civil enough for you? leave the word SANT in there, because we are discussing the life of a SANT, which you know nothing about, ok? thx— Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.163.135.156 (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Please note that Wikipedia has a manual of style and is a secular encyclopedia. The infobox does mention the Sant title, where it can remain. Moreover, on Wikipedia it's best to edit articles we don't have a conflict of interest about (WP:COI), editors also don't need to have special knowledge of topics or subjects, only to reflect reliable sources and write decently while following the manual of style (WP:MOS). In this particular case, WP:HONORIFICS applies. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Q
If you don't mind me asking, do you read Hindi (or related languages)? I am asking since we have crossed-paths in discussions where Hindi language sources were on offer and knowing whether you can read the sources yourself will help me avoid being unhelpful (by not providing a summary of what the source says, or links to Google translate) or appear condescending (by providing a summary of what the source says, or links to Google translate). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately not, thanks for asking. However I have no pressing intention to work on the aforementioned draft; my initial concern was that it wasn't notable if sources were difficult to find. My previous involvement with it was to point at a copyright violation (in October), then to recently copy-edit (it originally read like a type of sermon). I also don't remember how I found it, maybe as part of the WP:SKEPTIC new articles log patrol (that match particular strings), or in the contributions history of someone. I like Indian music and temple architecture and know about some scripture, deities and spiritual practices (so could recognize various related transliterated words), but that's my limit. —PaleoNeonate – 19:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. In case it was not clear my Q was not some passive-aggressive attempt to drive you away from that draft or India-related content ("You know no Hindi. You go" :)) It was simply to know how best to aid your useful contributions in the area. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the warm welcome. I believe that I am sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia procedures to handle the sorts of limited editing that I have been doing. However, when and if I turn my hand to more complex undertakings, it will be good to have a known person to whom I can turn for advice. Thanks! Neilaveritt (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey, PaleoNeonate, I'm really new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if I'm sending this message right. I added back the source on the alex jones page that you mentioned should still be there. I briefly read some tutorials, and apparently consensus is gained through talk pages and other people making edits. I'm unsure why you decided to delete my work instead of asking me about it? I don't want this to turn into an edit war. If you click on my account, you would be directed to my page, where I state that I'm brand new; and as a new user, maybe you could help me out a bit. I would love to take some serious time to read how to use wikipedia, but I'm scrambling to do all kinds of other work! But, I will get around to it.
It would be appreciated. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Intellectual Property Theft (talk • contribs) 11:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
PaleoNeonate,
It appears I misunderstood. I am a brand new user and was unsure about how to get consensus. I had read that consensus is achieved though talk pages IF there is a dispute. I assumed it was implied that it happens after publication. I also did not know that the Alex Jones page has a separate talk page. I thought I could edit something and someone will correct it or notify me. I shouldn't have been so arrogant. Anyway, do you mind if a join the process of editing the page? (I posted this also on the Alex Jones Talk Page–not sure if you were going to see it there.)
Thanks --Intellectual Property Theft (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Intellectual Property Theft: Hello again. WP:BRD explains the spirit: boldly edit, see if it stands, if not, either move on or attempt to form consensus. As you discovered, the place to do it is the relevant article's talk page. In some cases it's also good to first discuss before changes, but what you initially did (boldly edit) was fine. Except of course when it was reverted. At that article's talk page, multiple editors are expected to provide input (consensus is not only two editors). I also suggest making concise suggestions, ideally with sources, as article talk pages are for improving the article, not for general discussion of the topic (WP:NOTFORUM). There are indeed many things to learn on Wikipedia, but these basics should be a good start. —PaleoNeonate – 12:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Your guidance on COI policy and the gospels
PaleoNeonate --
Thanks for your helpful comments and guidance. I have responded with an entry on my Talk Page. If that is not the proper forum, however, please let me know and I will re-send the response to the address you designate.
@Neilaveritt: I have answered at your talk page in attempt to keep the discussion centralized, your/my talk pages are fine for this indeed. If you would like to discuss further about specific articles like Gospels then Talk:Gospels would be appropriate. Since this is a message about where posts are appropriate, I would also like to let you know of more public noticeboards that may be useful when article talk pages are not enough. To assess the reliability/usability of a source (that could include your own work), WP:RSN can be used. If there are further conflict of interest concerns, WP:COIN would be appropriate. There are others like WP:NPOVN for neutral point of view discussions or WP:BLPN for user biographies. Lastly, there are WikiProjects where editors share resources and a public talk page related to that topic, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity (which has its own talk page). I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 23:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
We live and breath footvolley. this is our business. so when we find references from publications (newspapers) of past events and we list them. do not delete what we inserted. do not delete LINKS. THIS IS WHAT WE DO FOR A LIVING. this is ridiculous that outsiders attempt to change history!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:7f0:28b0:a102:9412:8f71:a75c (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
2600:1702:7f0:28b0:a102:9412:8f71:a75c: I have no idea what you're talking about. I warned because I noticed an uncivil personal attack which is unacceptable. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, a couple of IP editors (who may be only one person for all I know) have been inserting bare URLs into the Footvolley page, seemingly in semi-random spots, thinking that's 'adding references', and getting upset when they're removed. Sumanuil (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Ponyo has semiprotected for a couple of days. And yes, Sumanuil, 2600:1702:7f0:28b0:34fd:4fb9:56d5:3478 and 2600:1702:7f0:28b0:a102:9412:8f71:a75c are only one person. If IPv6 (that's the long IPs) editors have the first four groups of digits the same, they're always one in the same. The one-person range could easily be blocked, but since they haven't edited anything outside Footvolley and Ponyo has taken care of that, I think it would be overkill. Bishonen | talk22:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC).
Thanks! I'd be honored to also receive the visit of Bishzilla someday, as long as it's for demonstration purposes only. —PaleoNeonate – 23:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
That is a bit of a mess. I suggest you tell them to stop posting on your page. If they continue regardless, let me know and I'll give them a short block. (Tomorrow. I'm going to bed right now — time-zone thing.) Bishonen | talk23:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC).
Ethics in the Bible
Hi! I am hoping I can talk you into coming to work on ethics! If I remember correctly, you are interested in and good at history and this article is really in need of someone like you. There is a whole section on history going begging right now, and no chance of me getting to it anytime soon--or maybe at all! Or come and contribute to anything anywhere in the article! Whatever you're interested in. Any and all participation would be appreciated! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: I'm sorry for the delay. As that article is contentious and there were many recent changes I'm not up to date with it and it I would need more time to read it and its talk page again. Unfortunately my Wikipedia-time is limited, but if there's something more specific I can directly look at you would like me to comment about, I'll try. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Everyone's been really awesome so far. Perhaps my charm simply overwhelmed them... :-) (Humor) Well, right now the history of biblical ethics is going begging, but please don't stress for even a second. I would be glad to have your input, your work is always good, but I understand if you don't have time. Take care, Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Homeopathy
Hi, I would like to take the Homeopathy article to good article status but I need a blueprint for getting it there. If you can give me some suggestions it would really help. JC7V-constructive zone16:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@JC7V7DC5768: Thanks for the invitation. I have not done GA reviews yet myself, but have reviewed your recent changes, improved citations and commented at the article's talk page. —PaleoNeonate – 03:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@JC7V7DC5768: (Sorry for the ping if you were already watching my talk page.) Considering how difficult editing Homeopathy is, it's possible that selecting another article for an initial GA be a good idea. Particularly, if you have access to a book that is a good review of a topic you like, it's likely a good starting point to edit articles that are covered in it. But I'm also not personally very ambitious about GA, some people manage to do things that impress me. Since my WP presence is sporadic, I tend to do more patrolling and gnomish technical edits (although I occasionally work on an article, without any assessment goal). Editors who managed to accumulate GAs are likely more clueful and may have important tips (often they accumulate green icons at the top of their user page). —PaleoNeonate – 06:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
A award for you
The Good Friend Award
Thank you for your valuable help in MfD of my userpage's subpage. You gave advices to me about deletion of userpages. This is for you. Thank you. PATH SLOPU (Talk)09:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that I appreciate you still periodically adding to that list on my talk page, and that I'm really enjoying the last one you put up. Damn good stuff.
I often listen to electronic not-vocal-heavy stuff at work while I'm writing code because it really helps me focus, and that one is a perfect addition to my playlist. I suspect I'll be tracking down more songs by them, for the same reason. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Glad that you enjoyed it, sometimes I wondered if posting more would get annoying. It's one of my favorite dnb tracks I think. —PaleoNeonate – 06:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Mokele-mbembe
And who decides what is pseudoscience? Who decides which eyewitness accounts count and which will be swept under the rug and declared "hoax" without any actual evidence that it's a hoax, just because it contradicts traditional theories? Who gets to decide that the evidence - and when you look at it objectively, there IS evidence - is ignored? Jim Pleiades Hawkins —Preceding undated comment added 12:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
And who decides which scientific sources are to be considered "reliable"? There are intelligent and reliable scientists on BOTH sides of the debate. Including the inventors of some of our technology (such as the MRI). There is NO scientific consensus on evolution; there is only a consensus among evolutionist scientists. Just as there is NO scientific consensus on climate change; that claim and figure - "97%" - has been thoroughly refuted (although I don't want to get on a tangent on climate change; just a similar example). Censorship, that's what it is. Jim Pleiades Hawkins —Preceding undated comment added 03:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jim Pleiades Hawkins:And who decides which scientific sources are to be considered "reliable"? if they're reflecting actual scientific views of relevant experts, they are the ones we're looking for. Including the inventors of some of our technology (such as the MRI) there's no reason for someone who isn't a biologist or geologist to not be a good electrical engineer or mathematician, of course. We still wouldn't use their works as authorities on biology, geology or climatology. There is NO scientific consensus on evolution; there is only a consensus among evolutionist scientists. Just as there is NO scientific consensus on climate change that is simply false and an argument from ignorance, I'm sorry to have to say it. In any case, as I said, we use reliable sources from relevant fields, not editor opinions, as basis for article content. I have no intention to pursue an endless WP:IDHT creation-evolution debate, Wikipedia is not for that, but will end with leads so you at least have an opportunity to learn more about it: scientific method, scientific theory, Talk:Evolution/FAQ, evolution as fact and theory and most importantly evidence of common descent. If you would like articles to reflect views which are not that of mainstream science there are other projects like Conservapedia. —PaleoNeonate – 05:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Adding: I acknowledge that identifying reliable sources can initially be a challenge. For that we have Identifying reliable sources (WP:IRS), the reliable sources noticeboard to assess a source and its searchable archives (WP:RSN), perennial sources (a summary of commonly discussed sources at RSN, WP:RSP), potentially unreliable sources (WP:PUS), among other available resources. —PaleoNeonate – 08:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Poodles
Thanks. Love the claim I'm a Francophobe. Ironic that his only purpose in editing this over a fair bit of time has been to argue a French origin. Anyway, I've started an RfC, I'm tired of him. Doug Wellertalk08:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes that's quite strange... I'll try to look at it again in the next few days, who knows if a mention that my primary language is French may help at some point. "Sauce"!—PaleoNeonate – 08:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
The user User talk:Doug Weller, keeps deleting all the overwhelming references stating that the poodle is of French origin. Not the 95 countries members of the FCI, nor the history of the breed, and neither the official statement madd by Germany in 1936 when the country joined the FCI (the main international dog association) stating that the poodle is solely a French breed is enough for him. It looks like he is in cruisade against the French origin of this dog as if being French was a shame.... for encyclopaedic purpose I let the assertion saying that only three kennel club worldwide, the akc, the ckc and the English kennel club are stating the opposite. But he can’t erase the fact that the rest of the kennel clubs are stating the poddle as a French breeed. He is acting like a censor that erases all the pertinents info that displeases him. For god sake, this is an article about the poodle and its origins, we are not dealing with any political or sensitive issues. Even the German article states the poodle as being French origin and cancelled his previous edits on this matter. I am tired to keep replacing the correct and documented info in the article.
S’il aime tant les races allemande qu’il se concentre sur les spitz ou autres schnauzers...--Gabriel HM (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
The same users cancelled again the edits and threat me of blockage, even though he his the one keeping erasing the well documented facts of the article. He is acting like a bully that does not use the talk page, threat the contributors and ignore simple plain documented facts. This is not the proper way to act in Wikipedia. The threats, and the cancelation by force should not be admitted. I am a member for several years without any problems, I have always be patient and understating but his actions are more related to threat intimidation and “passage en force” than anything else.
On dirait que le simple fait de dire que 95 pays reconnaissent le caniche comme race française le rende dingue et s’évertue systématiquement à l’effacer et me menacer en plus de POV alors que c’est lui qui s’obstine sans aucune discussion à effacer des faits avérés.
Please intervene to stop this constant threat against my edits. Cordialement --Gabriel HM (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gabriel HM: Let's look at what's actually happened. You've called me names and I've been polite. You reverted me and I didn't respond by reverting you. Instead I started a formal discussion asking which is the preferred version. Someone else reverted you and you reverted them. I gave you the standard warning that editors should get so that they can modify their behavior before they are blocked. I did not threaten you with a block and would not block you in any case as we are engaged in a content dispute, and I wouldn't use my Admin status in that way. I've not threatened you in any way. I certainly haven't used force. Not counting my changes yesterday, you've now been reverted by two other editors. And I just noticed that your French edits are simply insults including another accusation of preferring Germans over French. You are quoting policy against me while violating our policy of civility. That's not a good idea. Doug Wellertalk14:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@Doug Weller:::I am so sorry if you don’t understand a word of French and treat it like it was an insult.. please indulge you to open a dictionary and find the proper translation. The one that keeps reverting the edits it is you. For an obscure reason it looks that you can’t stand that the overwhelming sources and 98% of the kennel clubs worldwide say that the poodle is a French breed, and honestly I really start to wonder where this obsession comes from. Being of German origin would be more ok for you?? If I tried to erase your 3 references stating that the poodle was German you could accuse me of being partial, but actually the one that keeps erasing the simple and documented facts that 93 countries worlwide states the poodle as being of French origin is you, and this the real issue here. We can go to an arbitration committee, your status does not put you over the rules that you are supposed to protect.Be free to bring any other sources to assert your point of you, but do not erase my pertinent and corrects facts just because they do not please your. Remember what the admin on the German article told about this issue «Ursprung laut FCI-Standard ist Frankreich. Bitte dem Link in der Box folgen für Bedeutung von „Ursprung“. Ursprung ist nicht unbedingt Herkunft der Rasse.don’t worry it is not in insult neither . All the best--Gabriel HM (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@PaleoNeonate:, please as ludicrous as it might be can you intervene in the subject of the poodle breed. They keep erasing proper and factual facts. I never ever touched they ref nor depreciated their assertions. Why on earth stating that the majority of the kennel,clubs worldwide describe the poodle as a French breed intice systematic cancelation with threats. Since when accurate, pertinent and documented facts are CENSURED? My contributions does nort harm nor decredite Amy of their assertion, and this just pure intimidation and edit warring without real justification. Thank you --Gabriel HM (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gabriel HM: I'll look at the article soon. The debate should also not occur on this talk page but on the article's (as I wrote at Doug's talk page). I can read French so will also be able to check the suggested sources. Adding: I recommend using the preview button more often when posting, rather than making several actual edits correcting eachother, for technical reasons. "Sauce" above was humor about sources, as that's what matters the most. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Precious
gnomish guidance
Thank you for service from 2005, for welcoming users and improving references, for evaluating drafts, for a list of useful links on your personal page, for guiding and missing, - gnomish user expressing spirituality in music, you are an awesome Wikipedian!
yet SALON is enough to challenge the opening slogan of mad men and gets a spot in the opening paragraph yet the most controversial and shady scientific citations are the ones that get 10+ cites attached to one line i.e. alexander hamilton source control completely ruined wikipedia and you're another enforcer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.227.150 (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Adding: source control completely ruined wikipedia If you would like to assess if a source is reliable, WP:RSN can be used (and its archives searched), we also have WP:IRS on identifying reliable sources. Wikipedia does have academic bias (WP:ABIAS) and must reduce its WP:FRINGE coverage to what is available in reliable sources (WP:RS). In relation to Homeopathy, the WP:PSCI policy also applies. —PaleoNeonate – 11:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Joseph Barlow Forbes Draft
Hi PaleoNeonate, Thmazing asked me to help with the Joseph Barlow Forbes draft which I think you were involved in moving to his sandbox. I've added more in-line citations, including mentions of Forbes in a book of Utah history and an article on Mormons participating in the Civil War. I don't want to move the page without addressing the previous concerns with its deletion--do you think the sources I added help the page pass notability criteria? Thanks, Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Rachel Helps. My involvement was to detect a recreation of the article in mainspace (at Joseph Barlow Forbes) after a clear-consensus AfD discussion that resulted in its deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Barlow Forbes), then to tag it as such (WP:G4). After a user request it was restored and userfied by an admin. CSD G4 is for articles that get recreated in mostly the same state and I see that there were improvements since, so it no longer risks getting speedily deleted (quote: "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version"). I cannot access all sources, but what I could read unfortunately doesn't convince me that it would survive another AfD discussion. An idea would be to go through the WP:AFC process and to submit it for review, so someone more experienced could also assess it (adding {{subst:submit}} to the draft then clicking Submit should allow that). If it's declined, it could still be worked on either in the existing sandbox, or moved to Draft: space to invite more community editing. It may be possible to find more editors interested in improving it by mentioning it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement or Wikipedia:Mormon collaboration. I hope this helps (and sorry if any of that was already obvious to you), —PaleoNeonate – 18:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I moved it to the draftspace to submit it to AFC--I'm never sure if it's better to submit to AFC or simply create the page, but in this case submitting the page to AFC makes sense to me. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Nice, thanks for the link. I also listen to such music at times, this reminds me that I should check if Necarine radio still exists, it used to play various retro-inspired (and real retro) electronic music... I composed a number of compositions using OctaMED back in the day (also with its midi support to drive external synths, mixed with the Amiga native sound, albeit passed through the Sound Enhancer and with the low pass filter disabled)... I still compose, but no longer have Amigas. —PaleoNeonate – 16:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Creationism and NPOV and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thank you for your response to the correction I made earlier. I understand your point, leaving religion out of the equation is for the best, but I also feel it would be more accurate to rephrase the sentence in a way that conveys that this is actually a theory held by some scholars rather than undisputed fact. The way it's currently phrased makes it sound like there's an entire scholarly consensus (from all schools of thought) that this story indisputably crept into the Quran from Alexander Romance, which could be potentially misleading to someone who is new to the subject. Look forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbhard (talk • contribs) 18:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Nbhard: Likely that the lead wording could be improved... maybe something like "according to modern scholars", or "is considered by some scholars to", etc... Talk:Dhul-Qarnayn is the best place to discuss this, so other editors can also provide their input. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello PaleoNeonate, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
Project news
The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).
I don't actually mind extra pings - things get lost pretty easily in the watchlist if edits pile up, so I'd rather have a ping I don't need that neglect a response. Maybe I should put a note to that effect on my user page. GirthSummit (blether)06:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Mkleberte. What gives you the right? Any material, but especially if contentious, must cite reliable independent (secondary or tertiary) sources. Please see WP:CITE and WP:RS for more information. If a particular scholar is notable enough but does not represent the mainstream view on a topic, a mention is also possible but should be attributed as that person's opinion. The first edit that I reverted claimed as fact opinion of an author using a primary source (WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS). The last edit that I reverted did not cite a source but inserted an editorial comment in the article. If the intention was to cite a quote with attribution, that can be done but this was not the right way to do it. I suggest making a clear suggestion with your initial source at Talk:Tetragrammaton for other editors to assess. It's possible that a mention can be worked out and added in the article while still following WP policy and guidelines. I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 19:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Sir you did not even research the source Nehemia Gordon and made an incorrect decision, knee jerk removal of my addition. I call that narrow minded censorship. I hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkleberte (talk • contribs) 19:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
1,000 Manuscripts with Yehovah, Nehemia Gordon celebrates the incredible milestone of finding God's holy name with full vowels in over 1,000 Hebrew Bible manuscripts. Nehemia speaks with some of his team scouring Bible manuscripts in libraries around the world, as well as some of the people who have been key in spreading this vital information to Israel and the Nations. He also shares the exciting project he has planned next.
My thanks to all those who support my ministry and make it possible for me to do this important research! Thanks also to T-Bone, Dawn Irion, Chris Clark, Adam Kinghorn, and all the other volunteers scouring the libraries of the world looking for Yehovah's holy name in Hebrew Bible manuscripts!
While I may spend some time checking out your suggestions, please provide me with the substantiation for the defamatory claim, i.e. inclusion of FIGU and Billy Meier as being connected to any kind religion, cult, etc.
I will expect that the people you relied on, whose information you approved, have documentation to support their claims.
Again, please provide it to me...or of course you can notify me that it's been removed.
@MichaelHorn812: I did not try to find sources about FIGU etc. My comment on your user page was in relation to the of manual of style (WP:MOS) issues: it appeared like a comment destined for the article's talk page rather than encyclopedic prose. It also lacked citations (all material should WP:CITEreliable sources). Lastly, it is a list-type article, meaning that the inclusion criteria is having an article about the topic, a link to it and it seems that in this case, also cited sources (this depends on the particular list article). In relation to the defamation claims, the FISU entry links to Billy Meier which cites among others the book "The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions" in which he appears to be listed. As such, since it is already public information, there is no problem for Wikipedia to summarize it. If you think that some of those sources are problematic, they can be discussed individually at WP:RSN. The Billy Meier article itself can also be discussed at WP:BLPN if the article's talk page lacks sufficient participation. —PaleoNeonate – 00:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Please take a look at the talk page on the Planck temperature page
Please take a look at the talk page on the Planck temperature page. I have given the same source as is given on the Planck mass page and the Planck Length page. I have on the talk page also given electronic file that you can verify by looking up the pages numbers I have given. Please come back to the talk page and explain what more requirements you want, or alternatively delete the history sections on the Planck length and the Planck mass also. I am very surprised that you want to delete where I (and also others) have verified Max Planck first published his work on what today is known as the Planck mass, the Planck length, the Planck time and the Planck temperature. The reference has been given it is easy to verify. If not please explain why not, and try to improve on the page instead of deleting when others with possibly more insight on the topic try to contribute. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EntropyFormula (talk • contribs) 05:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I recommend reading WP:EXPERT. I also explained at that article's talk page, as well as yours, why the source wasn't what is expected for verification. But the discussion should indeed pursue on that article's talk page, so others can participate; I'll check its updates. It's very possible that other places also fail proper verification (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). We try to fix things as we discover them, of course. —PaleoNeonate – 17:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Little doubt concerning threats of other Wikipedia users
Hi, PaleoNate. As you may know, a few days ago I was involved in the talk page of the Placebo Wikipeida page, discussing the necessity to add some changes. As they did not want to change absolutely anything, I lost interest and gave up. I gave up 100% and have not continued editing or discussing in the talk page of Placebo. But now, @Guy is accusing me in my talk page of using alternative accounts (which is false). @PaleNeonate Can Wikipedia impose any sanction on the users who accuse others without proof? He said "if you do this again you will be blocked", so he is assuming I use alternative accounts without any evidence. Can Wikipedia impose any sanction on the users who threat and accuse others without any valid proof? James343e (Help!) 14:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Paleo is not an admin. JzG actually is an admin, but is one of those admins least likely to use the block tool, and is especially mindful of subjects he is involved in. That being said, the user you are accused of having as a sock was blocked per a WP:CHECKUSER investigation, meaning we know you were socking as that user, we don't just believe it. Generally speaking, we will frequently block the sock and leave the main account active because we are extending our good faith that you are sincerely trying to do what you think is best. However, if you continue to litigate this, an uninvolved admin is very likely to start looking over your rather long history of disruptive behavior and start asking whether it's worth it to allow you to continue editing, or whether they'd do best to just indefinitely block you and save the rest of us the headache. I wouldn't bet money on the former, if that happens. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Are you still threatening me despite the fact that I stopped many days ago to discuss and edit on the Placebo page? You are completely wrong by the way. I DID NOT use that user account. How do you know it? What is your proof? I did not have the same IP adress, nor I was the same person. I will not continue this litigate, but for sure I wasn't that user. Just because they arrieved to that conclusion doesn't mean it is true. There are many cases of people who are convicted for crimes they did not commit. Analogously, in this case I have been wrongly accused of using a fake account without any valid proof. James343e (Help!) 14:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC).
Hello James343e. Apparently the result of a long term abuse prankster, I'm glad it's resolved. Mistakes do happen, including by admins, of course. There are many cases of people who are convicted for crimes they did not commit indeed, fortunately not being able to edit Wikipedia is much less dramatic. —PaleoNeonate – 18:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants Thanks for your sincere apologies after wrongly accusing me of using a false account. So you wrongly accuse others and then you don't even apologize. Manners make the man.James343e (Help!) 18:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC).
Let the record show that I never apologized and likely never will, seeing as how I wasn't the one to make the accusation, merely the one to explain the evidence behind it. It turned out to be one of our LTAs trying to frame you? Good for you. Glad to hear that you hadn't stooped to socking in order to get your way, and I'll be sure to remember that you didn't -as far as I know- if it comes up again. But apologize? No. I apologize when I've done something wrong, not when I explain things. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.19:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Editing on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Good Morning,
In August, you asked me to refrain from editing your page on "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", citing that my edits were simply my point of view and violated Wikipedia's neutral point of view standards. I'd like to dispute this. Your page cites this film as being "Creationist propaganda", which is objectively preposterous. If you're looking for a "neutral point of view", my edit changing the description to "a 2008 documentary film" is perhaps the most neutral point of view I can think of. I urge you to reconsider your description of this film, and I urge you to reconsider your citing an objective fact as a personal point of view.
Hello 113.160.130.156. Are you certain that this message was intended for me? I have never edited that article or its talk page yet. I also noticed that you sent the same invitation to multiple editors: if you would like to reach more people, I suggest using a noticeboard or WikiProject talk page (related WikiProjects are listed at its talk page, a noticeboard in relation to biographies is also WP:BLPN). I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 11:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
That's a WP:SPA IP troll, since blocked. I was never pestered by that particular one, but have been by others who were similarly obsessed with obscure fashion models. They seem to try to recruit active good editors. If any other one canvasses you, I recommend checking their contributions; and, if you think it justified, as a public service both reverting their garbage on other users' Talk Pages, and posting at WP:ANI or one of its subpages. Unsurprisingly, IP users like that often set off experienced admins' sockpuppet alarms. Yrs (been there done that), Narky Blert (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The first time I got propositioned by one of these idiots, I ignored it.
The second time, a more experienced editor than I am did the rounds and reverted everything, including on my Talk Page.
The third time, I tipped off that experienced editor, because #3 and #2 were clearly the same. No need to start a new thread if someone else already knows the fool.
The fourth time, I joined in the fun. I got to make less than half of the reversions, because another editor who'd seen this sort of rubbish before had got hit a minute or two before I did... Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
No worries. I saw something somewhere on a talk page that mentioned it. This is just an arrow to put in your quiver for future use. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎)01:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.
Hello PaleoNeonate, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Backlog
As of 21 October 2018[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
Community Wishlist Proposal
There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!
Project updates
ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
Hi, I see you're busy and there's no rush for this, but after your earlier assistance with archiving, yours was the first name to jump to mind when I came across a problem. Talk:Patrick_Pearse has about ten years of discussion sitting on it, and I recently reverted an IP trying to stoke the embers and get some argument going again on some of them. I reckoned some archiving was needed, and I thought of you... I looked at the text at the top of the page, and it seems to have some code on there about archiving, and there is already an existing archive so it's obviously worked at some point in the past; it seems not to be doing anything now however. I took a look at WP:ARCHIVE, and considered just replacing the stuff that was there with the sample code for a sequentially numbered CLUEBOT III archive, but I was worried that I might break something with the old archive if I did that. Can you give me any tips? GirthSummit (blether)00:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: Your request is welcome, I'll have a look later on today (but currently have to leave). If it's not fixed by then I'll see what can be done. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
PaleoNeonate Cheers. There's genuinely no rush, I don't imagine this page gets very much traffic; I'd just like to find out how to fix this sort of thing for future reference. I'd be delighted if you could either fix it yourself (I can look at the diffs and see what you did), or would tell me what to do and I'll fix it myself (which sounds like I'm being all nice and offering to help, but would actually be more work for you I'm sure). GirthSummit (blether)01:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: You likely noticed the {{Archive box}} template. This only shows a box with any available archives, but does not include a bot directive to archive. Adding another template like {{User:MiszaBot/config}} would enable automatic archiving. I've not checked if the page previously had such bot directive, it's also possible that threads were manually archived from time to time (there's evidence of that in the first archive page, as it's abnormally short and lacks timestamps). MiszaBot (Lowercase Sigmabot III if I remember) will only automatically archive threads which include at least one timestamp (necessary for it to determine its age). It also will not archive a thread if {{DNAU}} is used telling it to wait. User:MiszaBot/config#Parameters explained points at the supported parameters for that particular bot. If you think that autoarchiving is worthwhile for that page, something like:
should work (with |counter=2 because the current number of archive pages is 2). |algo= and |minthreadsleft= should be adjusted for the circumstance. I tend to find {{Talk archive nav}} for |archiveheader= more useful than what the current archive pages use ({{talkarchive}}), as it provides previous/next archive navigation links (and old talk page archive headers can be updated as necessary if chosing this for consistency). Feel free to try this and to ask for more details if necessary, —PaleoNeonate – 09:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - you're right, I thought that the archive box 'auto=yes' might have been some archaic auto-archiving feature. I've copied in the your suggested stuff, hopefully the bot will get rid of the ancient stuff; thanks too for the links to the guidance, good to know for the future. Cheers! GirthSummit (blether)13:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
You warned him about this.[3] See also [4] I've warned him about the claim the source doesn't mention the genre as it explicitly does, asked him why he claimed that and told him I'm considering ANI (given other edits as well). Doug Wellertalk14:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Hello again. Hmm the two links above are the same, would this be in relation to the Prophecy of Seventy Weeks and NeoRambam? I do remember accusations of ownership done in edit summaries and on the talk page there (against Jeffro and Neo). While Neo appears to be a SPA, they seem to be observing policy to me, with the article's history showing them resisting AllenRoyBoy (and socks) POV pushing there in the past... I initially filed an SPI but the results were inconclusive/unrelated. I see Alphabetic's recent edits at Belshazzar's feast now. In any case, I'll gladly comment at any related ANI thread, but may unfortunately miss it if I'm not notified. It may take a few more weeks (if not more) before I have more time for Wikipedia in general...
And know what? Apart from the extra work hours, I recently am becoming a de-facto bed bug expert (and related detection and control techniques, equipment and pesticides: their action methods, hazards and uses) and helping out some people get rid of them. Someone I know recently paid 2k for a dog detection and heating treatment that allowed some to flee at neighbors downstairs. It's a recent pest in my city it seems (mostly eradicated in the 1940-1960s), with various people I know getting their first infestation this year. Other than pictures, I've only first seen some with my own eyes this summer... "Thanks Jesus for creating such lovely creatures that preferably feed on human blood and are intelligently designed™ to hide in the tiniest crevices and only come out every 5-7 days to stealthily feed at the right time, with special anesthetic and anticlotting saliva, and evolve resistance to common pesticides!" I think there's even an emerging market for special bed frames that are easy to inspect, have well designed feet and painted with slippery enamel... Although we'll have to wait a bit for good looks and comfort (non-prison/military institutional beds). Crack fillers and mattress encasements must also sell a lot. Disclaimer: I don't sell any such product and won't advertize them on Wikipedia. —PaleoNeonate – 03:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
You're making me itch. In fact, I already itch a lot at night, that would just send me over the top. Just Googled them, Google News is a bit scary. I notice a number of UK newspapers highlighting problems last month, and in the US[5][6][7] and I see our article on them is confusing and not up to date. Doug Wellertalk13:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.
Hello PaleoNeonate,
Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
Hello, PaleoNeonate. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001reviews), Semmendinger (8,440reviews), PRehse (8,092reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016reviews), and Elmidae (3,615reviews). Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only sevenmonths, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.
The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019
At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
Training video
Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minutevideo was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
@Dolotta: Thank you for patrolling drafts. I will not contest it: although I created the page, as the first edit mentions, it was taken from another user's sandbox, that editor was banned for undisclosed paid editing and I have no intention to work on that article. —PaleoNeonate – 16:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks MartinezMD. I tried to formulate a message to add but realized that I didn't really have anything to add and would mostly repeat your last post as well as my previous one. I'll keep thinking about it, though. —PaleoNeonate – 02:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
—PaleoNeonate – 07:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 
, 
, 
, 
.
—PaleoNeonate – 06:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan Leigh (talk • contribs) 12:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
