This is an archive of past discussions with User:Robertsky. 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.
Co-author. co-author of the paper, not primary author, not sure how much impact his contribution to the paper is. however the paper seems to be well cited with 585 citations according to google scholar
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
thanks for your quick feedback. I understand the first reviewer's comment about references - so I tried to add as many as I could find. WPA USA is a new organization, founded in 2018, so there hasn't been that much published about it.
However, I was really surprised about your feedback 'included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.' I am not aware of any copyrighted content, unless you are referring to coverage of WPA on other web pages. Which are cited because I need references (see above). Could you would please point out the copyrighted content in question?
Michael170845, the copyrighted materials have been removed and the revisions containing the copyrighted materials have been hidden. But basically, whatever that was written in the organisation's website (i.e. on https://www.wpausa.org/aboutus and https://www.wpausa.org/events) were on the article. You can see the changelog on the page's history page. There's no release of copyright or a commons license on the website. In absence of those, the default stance is that such material is copyrighted. – robertsky (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Request on 15:25:15, 10 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Michael170845
again, thanks for your feedback. As I indicated when I signed up, I work for WPA and I'm also one of the people responsible for the websites. And WPA has an interest in being included in Wiki. So while I will talk with my colleague about updating the website along the lines you suggested I would appreciate if you would not delete the info from the WPA website. Rest assured, we have no objections to quoting ourselves. If that's not possible I'll get back to you once the website has been revised. Are the any other issues that need to be fixed before the WPA entry can be published?
Michael170845, before a direct copy from the website is made, you should check with your organisation if the copyright to the text can be released. If it is a wholesale release of the content on the website, you can simply indicate in footer with a compatible license (i.e. CC BY-SA or GFDL). If it is just a few selected texts, send an email to WP:OTRS first. Other issue is the notability of the organisation, which should be backed by secondary reliable sources. If you are unable to find such sources, I suggest delaying inclusion of the article until such sources can be found. Lastly, since you are working for WPA, there is a relevant guideline that you should follow: WP:PAYDISCLOSE. – robertsky (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
You declined a draft for Glen Serbin citing that the references didn't use footnotes...isn't that what is there now? There are 30 references in the footnotes. I'm confused - Could you please explain how you came to that conclusion - thank you69.121.54.110 (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I have added comments on the draft directly. Refer to the draft. – robertsky (talk)
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.
AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.
Thank you so much for your very quick response. I was not expecting it so soon. I will add more citations once I am back from my hip surgery, so I will stay in the sandbox for now.
@Eisbergsk: Get well soon! I wish you the best of recoveries from the affliction that required you for your hip surgery and the surgery itself. Do you wish to have the Draft:Wilf Perreault draft space version deleted instead then, while you work on your sandbox? – robertsky (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Robertsky, thanks for your feedbacks. I have made the amendments and added the sources. Could you kindly review it again and advise me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddysim78 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Robertsky, I have read through the wiki notability guidelines, but I am still quite lost on this. The 31 references provided are all legitimate sources from different reputable media outlets and organisations, which have used and cited her analysis and comments since 2019. It would be very helpful if you could advise me on the appropriate sources you are looking for, so that I can improve on it correctly. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddysim78 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Reddysim78: again, the 31 sources does not support the notability because they are simply quoting her words directly, and her words that's dressed in different ways about the same (few) matter(s). there's nothing much in there that is about her analysis or her. you saying that there are 31 articles that quoted her therefore she's notable is a sign of original research. read through all the essays I that had linked in my initial comment on the article. For articles about people here, we are looking for biographies, not a fluff/press/promotional/resume piece.
This is with regards to my recent article submission declined by you for not maintaining the standard for inline citations. As per your advice, I referred to the Referencing for beginners page and made necessary changes to the best of my knowledge and has resubmitted the article. After resubmitting it again shows 3 months of time for the next review.
So I would like to know if you can look over the resubmitted draft "Anand Bal" and give me feedback on it so that I can make changes. This is my first article and I have been working on this for the last six months.
Really appreciate your time and looking forward to a positive reply.
@Vishuddhalive:, it may or may not take 3 months for the next review as reviewers may choose to review drafts in their own manner. There are still issues to address on the draft and I will add the following comments on the draft as well.
The resubmitted draft still needs more citations. The Career section needs more; Early life and Personal life sections has no citations; Filmography table should ideally have citations for each entry. Despite majority of the biographies of artistes that I have encountered having no references or little references to the table, it makes a difference when coming to nominating the article to be displayed on the main page. Personally, I go for citations on every sentence if possible (see Lai Meng as an example).
As a biography, one would expected the prose to be in chronological order. Going through the draft in further detail, the subject may not fulfil WP:NACTOR notability criteria as he does not have (verified) multiple lead roles, and also the references are on matters mostly tangential to the subject.
Hi Robertsky, thank you very much for your quick review of the Garry Gordon Cooper draft page and guidance to add more independent references. I have added over 30 more independent references/citations, so there's 43 total now. A few of the official government webpages, which are the formal references for some of the very high-level awards, require you to scroll down to the person's name to reveal the information as they don't provide separate links for each person. Hopefully it now exceeds the minimum standard. Thank you TruBlu351 (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Advice on adding non-primary sources when there is a lack of them
Hi Robertsky, I appreciate your quick review of my article submission. You rejected the submission for lack of reliable non-primary sources which was correct all the sources were QuidditchUK announcements or tournament schedules. I have now added a few links to some news articles in a Harry Potter themed news website to the page. Additional secondary sources are basically impossible to find as no other news outlets seem to have covered these events.
This lack of secondary references is a trend across all QuidditchUK tournament Wikipedia articles as the quidditch tournaments are only very rarely covered by journalists so most references come from QuidditchUK announcements or schedules. For example, the page for the Northern and Southern Cups has I believe only one source which is not a QuidditchUK announcements or tournament schedule. The Development Cup article even had no sources at all until I added some the other day.
I was wondering if you have any advice on what to do in this situation before I resubmit my article as I believe the Community League is something that deserves its own article (especially given the other tournaments have their own articles) but I don't see a way to add any more secondary sources. I'm still very new to Wikipedia so any help would be much appreciated. Thanks. - Twodonotsimply (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@Twodonotsimply: My only advice is to wait for secondary coverage. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is applicable here. just because the other articles exists, doesn't mean that they may not be deleted some time in the future. As an alternative, maybe have a small paragraph somewhere in the main article describing the competition(s), i.e. where're they being held, since when (year), how many teams, etc. When the press coverage picks up in the future, we can revisit creating a separate article. – robertsky (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@Robertsky: Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately I find it unlikely there will be much secondary coverage. It is already tricky to find secondary coverage on the Northern and Southern Cups which are equivalent quidditch tournaments that have been running for many years and what does exists is often local news coverage. Since this Community League is made of teams that are not affiliated with a university they often have players from a much wider area so may not be covered by local news. We will just have to wait until the next season's fixtures in late 2022 to see I suppose. For now I will update the main QuidditchUK article to briefly mention the Community League and will put the full tournament details and results in a new section in the existing Northern and Southern Cups article (since they are equivalent tournaments). - Twodonotsimply (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Response to Comment
Hi, thank you for commenting. I am still very new to Wikipedia so I'm not 100% sure on how to reply to comments sorry. In regards to your comment, I am making this page for an assignment for my university so I'm unsure whether I can merge my work. I will have to discuss this with my teacher if that's alright with you. Sorry for any inconvenience --LReinn86 (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@LReinn86: Sure! I am ok with you discussing with your teacher. Just two things: Wikipedia is an open collaboration platform and ideally we edit on each other's work on the same subject, rather than have different versions. Also, if anything, the Draft version was last edited about 150 days ago, and is likely to be abandoned (it takes 6 months from the last edit though for abandoned drafts to be deleted). Even still, there is still a possibility of having the two versions merged together.
Putting on my reviewer's hat, your version may not be accepted due to its sourcing. Only the eighth source (variety.com) is independent while the rest can be considered as primary sources and do not denote the podcast's notability. Find at least two other independent and reliable sources to support the notability of the podcast (you may wish to peruse Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for a list of websites to avoid in general).
Thanks @Robertsky. Student editors in classes we support should have a template on their userpage and talk page indicating they are part of a course. But definitely let me know if you encounter students I might be able to help with.
Hi again. Sorry for my delayed response, I live in a different country so my time zone may be different to yours. I have discussed with my teacher about merging the articles and they said that it's fine for me to do so, so yes I'll be happy to merge the draft articles. Yes, unfortunately, my draft was rejected for that reason. Again, I'm still new to this and I was struggling at the time to find many resources on the topic, but thank you for informing me about this. --LReinn86 (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@WillsEdtior777: No problem. However, do note that the removal isn't a stamp of approval of the articles. I didn't review the articles and was just cleaning up. :) Another editor may review your articles as they go through the WP:NPP backlog. – robertsky (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Request on 08:07:45, 13 March 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Pbwelch
Hi. Thanks for your comments. I have removed the 'Ibid's as requested, and have added more resources. I would consider the New York Times, Straits Times, and other published sources including academic journals verifiable sources, which I hope you will agree with and have added several more although they all do seem to repeat the same message: that this is an incredible high-performing archeologist who has changed our understanding of Singapore's early history and deserves a page on Wikipedia. I hope you will agree. Thank you.
Hi Robertsky,
Thanks for the quick review of my draft Wikipedia page about Dr. Mario El-Khoury.
The draft you reviewed was not complete. I found no “Save” button to save my intermediate work except the Publish one. I sincerely apologize for this inconvenience.
As for M. El-Khoury, he successfully led the CSEM over the last 12 years. CSEM is one of the most prominent technology research center in Europe, known by experts for its contribution to electronics, to space instruments, to great innovations in the watch industry, and more recently to the renewable energy and medtech under the leadership of M. El-Khoury. As such, I think it’s certainly a plus to have this page in the English Wikipedia, mainly that CSEM and M. El-Khoury have their base reputation only in French-speaking media.
As this is my first contribution in the English Wikipedia, I will be very pleased to receive any improvement suggestions from you.
Thanks in advance.
Lilliek (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@Lilliek: Hmm... if possible, add citations for the Education, Career, Marriage and Children, and Recognition sections. Thereafter, you can resubmit the draft for review again when you think it is ready. – robertsky (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, please advise if something else can be improved and what are the next steps for the submission. Thanks in advance. Lilliek (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I was wrongfully declined a totally provable and certain and final factual inclusion to Wikipedia this morning by Robertsky and I’m initiating the investigation on behalf of the Country of Switzerland into this matter. Everything will be revealed by this investigation. All crime will be prosecuted, if the investigation reveals proof of crime! I intend to resubmitt the Prince Pius draft in proximate moments, with God as my witness! Sincerely, Prince Pius, a bona fide Swiss Diplomat, entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of a Swiss Diplomat Written 03/15/2022 ca. 1030 Hrs EST JamesA.Blatt (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Dr.Pinsky do you have other secondary references that can be used, preferably articles in news, magazines, etc, and have significant coverage of her? Gruenburg's does not have sigcov; History makers looks ok; Erie reader sigcov as well; president's corner is primary source. – robertsky (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@Robertsky thanks for your suggestions. I have added references from Washington Post,University Press of Kentucky and NewSouth Books. If there’s more work to be done just let me know. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Robersky! In my experience IMDb is as reliable source as Wikipedia. You need to provide evidence to their editors for the verification e.g. direct URL to the awarding body's official listing and also third party data source.
Anyways, I added few reliable sources which confirms correct almost all listed awards. National Audiovisual Institute (Kavi) has a database of Finnish films. It’s governmental
bureau under the Finnish Ministry of Education responsible for supervising the distribution of audiovisual content. Unfortunately their database is incomplete (and partly is in Finnish).
Problem with older films is that some of the needed data in harder to find and some links providing information won’t function anymore. Best, Ruutanaonki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruutanaonki (talk • contribs) 12:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ruutanaonki see WP:IMDB. IMDb has marked as generally unreliable since 2019 by the community here, before your account's registration date. Hence, the ask for non-IMDB sources. Sources need not be online sources. If you can find offline sources like printed newspaper reports, you can make use of them too, but just be prepared for anyone who may request a copy of the printed material from you for verification. – robertsky (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok, understand. Good to know. I have now added new sources (in addition to IMDb) which covers all the awards mentioned. I deleted “Telvis award” since I wasn’t able to find any other reliable online source than IMDb (except a dead link). Now should be fine. Check and if ok, then accept the submission? Thank you for your time. Ruutanaonki (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Is there a way your GitHub program can exclude some pages related to Singapore for Index of Singapore-related articles? Following an attempt at recreating an article for a non-notable Fann Wong album (see edit history for Missing You (Fann Wong album)), I do not feel that any form of work relating to Singapore should be included if the subject that is common to all of them is also linked, as that subject will have information about the other subjects. Jalen Folf(talk)04:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@JalenFolf: without code modifications, you can remove the fann Wong albums category on the redirects as the code is tracking it. I am working on a revamp which (hopefully) can exclude redirects from being listed among other changes. If you have some categories you think I should exclude from tracking, let me know. – robertsky (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@JalenFolf: on reading closely to your rationales for removing the articles from the index, I have to disagree. Fann Wong is a prominent Singapore based actresses, and most of her works tied with Singapore's culture closely when she was more active in the entertainment industry. The Index is after all for any articles related to Singapore, even works done in Singapore. There are exceptions to the rule, like articles substantially mentioning Singapore in the passing. If notability is an issue, feel free to send the articles for prod or AfD or do redirects for these articles, or improve on the articles. Most of the articles were written and introduced before the consensus of the current notability standards, and chances are that sources can be found in the newspaper or multimedia archives. If the works are listed still during the weekly runs, they will be reinserted. – robertsky (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ruutanaonki: Each article is evaluated on its own basis. The existence of similarly written articles doesn't mean that the similarly written article is sufficient by current day's notability standards. These articles may have been created before the notability criteria have been tightened to what it is now. Stubs of course can be accepted, provided that the subject meets the notability criteria. In this case, WP:DIRECTOR.
But in my opinion it does not. His film won awards at one festival, how about at other festivals, or had his work been critiqued by multiple peers? (point 1 of WP:DIRECTOR). It is not immediately clear from the stub. I don't see anything that he originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique (point 2). Despite having a number of short films listed, it is not cited (imdb unfortunately cannot be a source per WP:RSP), neither is there reference to show that at least one other work (than the Diver film) is notable (another film another award, perhaps?) (point 3). Ditto for point 4.
Now on the advertisement tag, that's because of last couple of sentences. My interpretation was that was 'thus far his works involves element of water in huge manners, but doesn't mind future work that doesn't emphasis on water as long as the subject interests him.' In my opinion, it has a promotional vibe to it.
Hi! Ok, but as I told this article is a stub. His films has won many international awards, not just one. His film The Diver (Hyppääjä) made history in Tampere Film Festival, winning the Grand Prix and rest of the main prizes. It's been awarded in many well known festivals.
@Ruutanaonki the text in the article at the moment is His short film The Diver (Hyppääjä, 2000) won the Grand Prix and other main prizes at the Tampere Film Festival 2001. which only reflects that awards won at one festival. I only knew that it had won awards in other festivals after reviewing the draft article of the Diver a week or so later. As for the quote, I am saying that I perceived it to be promotional to be included into the article. – robertsky (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Did you check the source (reference: No.6)? https://voima.fi/arkisto-voima/vesimiehen-aika/. He had a retrospective screening of his water themed films in Ludwigsburg Short Film Biennale in Germany. The focus of Voima’s interview (in Finnish) is about his relationship with water. “Lehtisen elokuvissa hypätään, kroolataan ja soudetaan – vesi on aina mukana joko pää- tai sivuroolissa”. “In Lehtinen's films, there is diving, crawling and rowing - water is always involved in either the main or side role”. Even the title is “Vesimiehen aika”, “Water Bearer’s time”. Water is the key element of his film works and naturally should be included into the article. Your argument sounds like saying Jacques Cousteau had nothing do with the sea. :)
Sorry to say this, but I get an impression you haven’t really read the references. Please, check em’. Generally, I don’t know how familiar you are with scene of art films and culture, especially European? He has notability and sources are reliable. The article is stub, but I don't find any reason for not accepting submission?
@Ruutanaonki added the 2011 screening, added a non-youtube ref to back that up (would love to use your YouTube link, but see WP:YOUTUBE-EL). rewrote the last line.
I had read the sources, but nothing in ref 6 pointed out to him having a retrospective screening in Germany? Do point out the passage. If not, provide a source for that. That will help a lot.
There are two general issues English editors tend to face when verifying non-English sources and dealing with pre-dominantly non-English subjects:
1. Machine translations tend to be sub-par in quality. If I encounter sources that are written in languages that I am not familiar with, I tend to either skip doing the review (and some other reviewers do too), or attempt to match the written sentence with the translated text and see if both mostly match with each other.
2. I am using Google in English, which may hide non-English search items. What I am seeing on the first page of the search result for the director are mostly imdb, local imdb alternatives, wikipedia, wikipedia mirrors. If there are Finnish sources (or for the matter of predominantly non-English subjects, non-English sources. A lot of BLPs that I deal with are predominantly Chinese/Korean/Japanese celebrities, and I had to search in English and the respective native languages to find the necessary information), we typically rely on the contributing editor(s) to provide the non-English sources at the start of the articles to back the notability of the subject.
I am not familiar with European arts films and culture, thus relying on you as the contributing editor to help provide the sources. My primary arts related interest is choral singing, and such articles may be easier to pass, but only because I know roughly where to start to look for additional sources if need be. However, that has no bearings on the reviewing process as we strive to be impartial so that we can get as many drafts as possible to be accepted into the mainspace. – robertsky (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, you’re right. It’s a bit tricky with Google search and non-English items. And machine translations are many times pretty poor. Your rewriting looks fine.
Ref: https://voima.fi/arkisto-voima/vesimiehen-aika/. Please check the first lines, which points out the retrospective screening in Ludwigsburg. “Dokumenttielokuva Kroolin lopputekstitjuoksevat valkokankaalla, valot syttyvät. Saksalaisyleisö taputtaa innokkaasti, kun ohjaaja PV Lehtinen astelee valkokankaan eteen. Etelä-Saksan Ludwigsburg, syyskuu. Lyhytelokuvabiennaalin kolmekymppisen helsinkiläisohjaajan elokuville omistettu retrospektiivinäytös on ohi. Viisi vedellistä elokuvaa on selvästi tehnyt vaikutuksen yleisöön.” “Closing credits of the Crawl documentary are running on a big screen, the lights come on. The German audience applauds enthusiastically as director PV Lehtinen steps on stage. Ludwigsburg in Southern Germany, September. The retrospective screening dedicated to the films of the thirty-year-old director at the Short Film Biennale is over. Five water themed films have clearly impressed the audience”.
Retrospective screening also at Regensburg Short Film Week. I did some rewriting. Ok? Ps. Choral singing is not my cup of tea, but if singers good like to listen. :) Ruutanaonki (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
@Btspurplegalaxy Hard to say... Although there was some apparent editorial oversight, I am not sure to what extent the articles are edited or looked at, especially as the site called its writers contributors. I say... if there are better sources, make use of the better sources instead? You may want to ask this at WP:RSN. Link the specific article which you want to use as a source when asking the Noticeboard.
Notes from doing an online search: It seems like the website had suffered from a incomplete revamp (speculating here, after diving into archive.org and looking at their current HTML codes). archive.org shows that the website had functioning contact us/team pages which are indicative that there was some editoral oversight and the contributors were experienced (varying levels) at writing articles. It seems that the website is currently in a form of stasis; in suspension since at least 2018 (2011/2012 if you judge by their socialmedia activities). – robertsky (talk) 07:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi. You've accepted this film in AFC draft and I'm wondering why. Looking at the #Production section, it is not sourced why the production is notable, per WP:NFF. Am I missing something? Thanks! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
@DaxServer As written, it is in post production stage, which is way past the principal photography stage as indicated in WP:NFF. And that line is sourced, even though if it is in a different language, at least what Google Translate is saying. I am AGF on the sourcing. Do let me know if there is an issue with my interpretation of NFF. – robertsky (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The source material for Flora Cheung has been modified
Hello, the source information of Flora Cheung has been modified. If you have any more questions, please check it out, thank you! 14.136.61.154 (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
There are still passages that are uncited, and probably not needed as well, i.e. the sections Character, Figure and Others. – robertsky (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
TOS-1 used by Ukraine
Hello
are these sources reliable enough to add Ukraine as current operators? Both articles are based on facebook post of Ukraine official.
@Maddest Jack, I can't read the language. Google Translate seems to support the assertion. I won't challenge these if used, but other editors may do so if they think there is an issue with the sources. – robertsky (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Cherian George, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Harry Birtwistle and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Harry Birtwistle, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Robertsky!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Greenman (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, recently i posted a map showing Geographical distribution of ethnics living in afghanistan, the map is english version of al-Jazeera report wich to me it doesn't have any political agenda unlike other governomental organizations. But history of iran user deletes my map every time i post it but my map is english version of Al-Jazeera report. Please look at afghanistan ethnic Page 5644Khorasani (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.
Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.
In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 803 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 851 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.
This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
About the question
Hi Robertsky, it's me. I just seen the question but I have been busy, but I seen the question. I decide to reply in private here from there.
I have read the WP:UNBAN article, and understand, but there are some minor questions need to ask for (Note: usernames are not included here because of privacy and pinging):
In the case for the affected editor (that came from the WikiProject Singapore, from what I heard), who should lodge a report to the administrator for appealing?
Not all of the sock puppets are perfect- in the case, about CheckUser, can it be appealed and administrators do a correction?
How to actually report a user for repeated disruption?
Asking first because although I joined Wikipedia a while after the seniors left- I wished something can be done right and hope it is for the group, after all, asking one question is always an idea to get knowledge. I also wish if can email privately so that I can provide the details in private?
I have not clerked for CU therefore do not know the probability. Beyond the obvious technical similarities, from my understanding, some sort of behavioural analysis is made as well. If the affected editor doesn't try, they are not giving themselves a chance.
For disruption/vandalism edits, the editors are typically warned 4 times on their talk pages (best via WP:TWINKLE). If the four warnings have been accumulated within a month, you can report to WP:AIV (again, best via Twinkle). However, not all edits that are seemingly disruptive are disruptive, some may be combating egregious, rapid fire edits. You can read more at this guide. AIV may not be the only place to get administrators' attention or relevant. Other venues can be at WP:ANI, WP:DRN, WP:UAA, or even on WP:IRC or WP:Discord if the edits needs to be suppressed (for reasons such as doxxing, etc) quietly as well.
I spoke to the affected user in private and yes, I asked him to try again about end of June (six months upon after the first failed appeal) to retry an appeal. I seen the other guides, so I let him retry the appeal again.
I could not see the Tools > Email this user option, and neither I have Discord. I do not have an open email either, but I try to use one on my accord. If can enable again, I will quickly PM in private. SReader65 (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
After a careful consideration for about a week, I decided to hold off emailing you for the time being. Knowing that I should not be interfering or otherwise, I willing not to take a risk (or because of the email). But I do keep the link and I send again when the time comes. Otherwise, I wait when the time is right. Thanks and do understand. SReader65 (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Irvin M. Cohen
Hola!
Regarding your recent comment--
"Comment: much of the text here is tangential to the subject. what's relevant are somewhat unsourced – robertsky (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)"
I am somewhat at a loss. When I compare the pages for other members of the APA's lithium task force, William Bunney, Jonathan Cole, Ronald Fieve, I don't see anything superior regarding their references. Given that Cohen was Chair of the task force, I'm unsure what it is, exactly, that you found lacking. My attempt here is to create a readable article that gives context for the work Cohen and these others were producing. Perhaps you would be so kind as to better detail what would bring the Cohen article into better compliance with these others?
Apologies. After going through the references in detail, I think I had made my evaluation in haste. Will have the article moved back to the mainspace. Later in the day, I will add in citation tags where I think is needed. – robertsky (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I *WILL* take another pass through to tighten things up (I think I see one section particularly that could use some tightening). Trying to fill in the biographies/state accurately the accomplishments of these major (but not well-known, outside of their fields) players in medical science from the 50s and 60s is definitely a challenge, particularly the dead ones!
Feedback is very much appreciated. I'm still building my Wikipedia editorial experience, and in some instances, the only way to figure things out is to do them wrong. I accept that going back to correct my own mistakes is a part of things.
And also as I was working, I was finding out the American-centric viewpoint of the Lithium information I was bringing together. Which, interestingly, makes Cohen more significant (at least in the USA), because his earlier work with the positive advances/limitations of chlorpromazine and benzodiazepines gave him the stature/authority to approve lithium for general use.
The clean-up work you did on the article is much appreciated. I understand that it's not "mine" any more, but I'll try to keep on top of it for a bit to see if there are any more improvements to be made.
HI. Its about Creating Mundaya Venkitakrishna Bhagavatar. The main souce is refrenced and one can get the details from the webpage. THe mentioned person can be literally called as the father of current rendering of Kathakali music. Please review the same and spent some time to review the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgsnand (talk • contribs) 16:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
@Cgsnand nothing changed since I last reviewed the draft. If you are referring to the user page, User:Cgsnand/Sample page, you have created, I am not reviewing it. Integrate into the draft and resubmit it. It will simplify the reviewing process and allows for other reviewers to look at it to instead of just one reviewer (me) going around to hunt for what you do. Don't expect others to do it, nor from me again. But one thing for sure is that the new additions are suspicious as references given that there is advertisement or blatant takeover from a slot machine/gambling site. – robertsky (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
The source information of Flora Cheung (model, and actor) has been modified.
Hello, the source information of Flora Cheung Ching-sze (张净思 is Hong Kong model, actress) has been partially revised, please check it. If you have more questions, please give your opinion, thank you! Yohusenofyipyuesuen (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, the source information of Flora Cheung Ching-sze (张净思 is a Hong Kong model, and actress) has been partially revised, please check it. If you have more questions, please give your opinion, thank you! Yohusenofyipyuesuen (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Robertsky. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:NUS College, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello Robertsky, thank you for undoing the IP edit to Draft:Freya Fox. I didn't realize that anyone could simply undo a review. What's to stop another IP editor from undoing it again? What is the best way of proceeding with a scenario like this? TipsyElephant (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.
Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]
In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).
While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).
Backlog drive
A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
TIP – New school articles
Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
Misc
There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 13633 articles, as of 14:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot
There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Dear Robertsky, thank you so much for reviewing my article about Tetiana Mitchenko. I took your comments and rewrited the Biography section in prose. I kindly ask you to confirm the article about the Ukrainian scientist. We must support Ukraine and tell the whole world about Ukrainian scientists.
--Alexandr14 (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
@Alexandr14 I am supportive to an end of the war, but not at the expense of WP:PILLAR while on Wikipedia. I have left additional comments on the draft for you to take it back to the drawing board to improve on the draft. Do not ping me for another review of the draft when you are done improving your draft. Typically, drafts are reviewed by multiple AfC reviewers. It should be reviewed in due time by another reviewer upon your next submission. – robertsky (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Would this news story be notable for article creation?
Hello, would this news story be notable if charges would be brought against the defendants or if there were more info about it?
To put it simply, the NBI filed murder raps against 22 police officers (Philippine National Police) for the deaths of inmates in New Bilibid Prison. NBI thinks that COVID-19 was used to cover up the deaths of the inmates due to many of them being notorious drug lords.
Would this pass WP:CRIME or WP:BLP1E if the situation develops and more evidence against the officers is revealed? Or should it be a more substantial crime to be added as an article? Thank you.
@Spodle In my opinion, yes. The death of 8 prisoners unlawfully by the hands of the police officers would be notable. Given the high profile nature of the crime alleged and charges, I don't think it will be long before further details will be released. – robertsky (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
How many sources needed to be granted draft:Lurin Jyoti Gogoi?
How much source needed to prove notability of a person ? Do you know how much he is notable?
Should I provide references of Usa for a politician of India ? Suppose he is not notable inspite of giving many national suitable sources. Then how can persons be notable in wikipedia having regional sources, irrevalent sources ? I think a few people is trying to demotivate new comer editors.
Baruah ranuj (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
@Baruah ranuj First, on the rationale of my tag on the article: usually for policitians or fledging ones, I typically look at WP:NPOL for guidance. As he didn't win the election, I evaluated based on crit 2, Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. WP:GNG may apply as well. Of all the sources on the page, I determine that [3] and [4] are of signficant coverage of the subject. The other sources range from him being the spokesperson of the party he leads ([5], [6]), brief ([7]), or simply profile pages relating to the elections ([8], [9], [10]). Thus, I find that the notabilty of the subject is just tethering on the line. Try find one or two more in-depth coverage of the subject, best if they are for different times of his life.
How much source needed to prove notability of a person?. There is no minimum, it depends on the length of the article, but typically I (and some editors as well) look for three best references that are of reputable sources and of significant coverage.
Do you know how much he is notable? I don't. That is you as the editor for the article to establish for the other editors and readers.
Should I provide references of Usa for a politician of India? There's no need for that.
Suppose he is not notable inspite of giving many national suitable sources. As explained above on the sources that you have used.
how can persons be notable in wikipedia having regional sources, irrevalent sources See: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS We evaluate articles on their own individual merits and establish consensus for each article if need be. Just because other pages may be of X, doesn't mean that this page can be of X.
I think a few people is trying to demotivate new coner editors I hope that my explanations clear up your questions that you may have. Typically for new politicians who doesn't have any prior history, their articles would have been either consigned to one of the three paths, deletion discussion (7 days of consensus building), draftification (giving the article grace of at least 6 months to work on), or merge and redirect into another page. But since there's some history in his career, it just need a couple more in-depth sources of him for the notability to be further established.
Articles creation may be daunting, but don't let this put you off. I do have drafts that are still filed away in various states of completion as well, either due to the notability isn't established yet, or I have yet to compile the relevant sources for them. – robertsky (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
the references given clearly prove the notability. person not associated or lack of knowledge in the matter should not interfare to determine the notability of a politician.Baruahranuj12:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I have done my assessment of the references you had placed in the article and stand by it. The article needs a couple more sources with significant coverage to ensure that no shaky legs can topple the cauldron over, that's all. I am trying to help you here to have the article remain in the mainspace, lest before another editor coming in to ask for the article to be deleted, and also have it indexed by search engines as soon as possible. With regards to person not associated or lack of knowledge in the matter should not interfare to determine the notability of a politician, I bring your attention to one of the the fundamental principles of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute. Since you don't want my help, sure, I will just let the article be in the NPP queue for another willing reviewer to review.
Robertsky hi. It's me nelson. I am here to tell you about the misunderstanding between me and secret squirrel because he or she seem to perceive me as a anti death penalty activist and suggesting me for having an ulterior motive in making articles on capital cases in the discussions to delete Kalwant Singh and Norasharee Gous. Actually I am not. I am just a ordinary young fella who only edit and create wiki articles out of interest. He even directly mentioned me at the top of the article capital punishment in Singapore to tell others to restrain me when I can actually do everything to amend my errors. I feel troubled about the sudden confrontation and misunderstanding that I thought maybe can seek advice from you on how to manage it, and if you can act as a meditator between me and squirrel to better help us clear up the misunderstanding. Thank you if you can provide assistance NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I hope that he can understand what I told him and clarified to him. I certainly do not hope he develops a vendetta against me and can be understanding. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 07:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
From what I saw, because of the supposedly excessive edits I made in capital punishment in Singapore and my creation of articles of death penalty convicts, secret squirrel thus have the negative opinion about me. Of course I have removed the unnecessary details from the article. Robertsky you might want to have a look at the discussions to know the full story too
Inviting you to the Amhara genocide nomination for deletion discussion
Hello @– robertsky (talk). Thank you for your help on improving/ editing this Amhara genocide article, to bring the rating back to the B-level. This has been re-affirmed by experienced editors especially after the citations style improved. Since the article has now been nominated for deletion, I thought you would be interested to join the discussion. Thank you Petra0922 (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
@Petra0922 Thanks for the invite, but I will sit out on this AfD. Looking at the comments left by others on the page, I don't think there's a need for me to participate. Side note: take note of WP:CANVASS when you invite others to participate for discussions on Wikipedia. – robertsky (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello @– robertsky. Certainly. Thank you for introducing me to it. I may also need to look into more examples to learn about the boarderline between, invitation for participation of those improved the work versus trying to influence decisions. Another opportunity to learn about important Wikipedia culture:). Petra0922 (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Article moves for ballistic plate and trauma plate
Hi! I was wondering if you could help me with an edit I'm trying to make. I want to include info on the Straits Times history as a propaganda tool and how changes following WWII turned it into the paper it is today, both before and after Singaporean independence. However some of my edits were reverted and there was a suggestion of POV-pushing, which I would dispute. I don't think my information was biased in either a pro- or anti-Japanese direction but if it was, I want to avoid that so that this information, that I feel is important to the paper's history, can remain published and available. If you have time or the inclination, could you please take a look to see if anything seems biased or given undue weight? I need to beef up the post-war section, so it might be a little lopsided right now, but I will try to balance that. Thank you for your time! Best, Kazamzam (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
@Kazamzam As part of the WP:BRD process, I suggest opening up a discussion on the article's talk page and ping the reverting editor as well. The article (among many other articles in the Asian region) has a history of a persistent sock activity that tend to skew the point of view of the subject in question to the extreme. As the reversion was done in bulk, as well as your edits, I am unable to determine quickly which changes are pertinent to your ask above. It would be great if you can break down in the discussion on the talk page as to which paragraphs you want to insert/remove/modify. – robertsky (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Impeccable timing - I just had a discussion with the editor on their page and it seems we had some wires crossed on which groups were using the Straits Times as a propaganda mouthpiece - the answer is apparently everyone. I was referring to the changes during WWII and they were removing stuff added by an LTA about the post-independent activity so hopefully that is settled! I appreciate the tip on sock activity, I requested the page be protected and I might ask the page protectors to make it more permanent than just seven days if the IP edits start up again. Thanks for your advice, Kazamzam (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I just saw that you created on the same day as me (June 5th) a draft about the Thai-Singaporean horror film titled The Antique Shop and I would like to merge my draft with yours. I know that maybe I should have written a message about the merge on the talk page of your draft, but I prefer to tell you on your talk page. Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
But do I still have to put a template regarding the merge, or I can directly move the contents in your draft to mine? I've never merged pages before, so I don't really know how to do it without doing mistakes. Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
@Bloomingbyungchan Hmm... done the merge as an example. I don't think this is a controversial merge to warrant a full blown discussion involving others (i.e. putting the template first, wait for others to respond, etc). It is apparent that our work overlap each other; there're no other editors involved significantly in our drafts; and we have worked out a resolution here. In the future, you can follow the steps indicated in here WP:MERGETEXT on how to merge articles. – robertsky (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
@Bloomingbyungchan: I wonder how long more this draft has to wait before getting out from the draftspace... Given the multi-national cast, one would have expected a wider release by now, and thus more movie reviews, but there's no further news about it. It is not even listed on (Singapore's) IMDA film classification database. /rant– robertsky (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Exactly, I've searched many times the antique shop both in korean and thai to see if new articles have been published recently, but nothing recent and related came up. Also, if I remember correctly, it will be released in Singapore but the release date hasn't been revealed yet. Bloomingbyungchan (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
@Eurohunter If you are going to make a demand next time, do start with the action that I had carried out here. Time can better spend on other stuff than looking through your contribution history to see where we may have intersected.
If you are referring to 2022 Mariupol cholera outbreak, which you had edited going by your contribution history, I didn't touch that. What was touched was Possible 2022 Mariupol cholera outbreak. I typically remove categories from the redirects because Redirects are not usually sorted to article categories. If you think there are exceptions as described in WP:RCAT, go ahead and add the categories. I don't go around reverting the additions unless they are egregious. – robertsky (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
First, the draft wasn't submitted for a AfC review. putting {{subst:submit}} on the draft page will put the draft in the review backlog.
As for whether to move to the mainspace now, I decline to do so. There are issues with the sources you have referenced, and the draft itself in general. First source is an interview, which may be considered as a self-published or primary source in general. I will not comment on the content of the interview, since it was conducted in a language that I am not familiar with, and there's no closed caption to follow through the video. The second source is is a list of articles presumbly written by the subject. I don't see how is that relevant to the statement(s) it is backing up for. The third source has no relevance to the statements it is backing up for. There are also plenty of statements that can be challenged are not backed by reliable sources. You may want to refer to WP:BLPSOURCES for the general notability policy dealing with biographies of living people.
I hope this is sufficient for you to make the necessary improvements before submitting the draft for a proper review, because if you submit now, another reviewer is likely to arrive at a similar assessment and decline the submission. – robertsky (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Jeff Tuohy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. PRAXIDICAE🌈16:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
This award is given to Robertsky for 107 reviews in the July NPP backlog reduction drive. Your contributions played a part in the 9895 reviews that took place during the drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Assistance for review
Hello! I have been helping to improve the draft article Draft:Connected (2022 film), which its submission was declined on 19 July 2022. I've added secondary sources that support the veracity of the article's information. Would it be okay to take a review on the progress of the draft article, and if the current version has met notability standards? Hoping for your swift action on the matter. Thanks and Godspeed!
After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Hello:
I am an employee of Grove Collaborative and therefore have a COI relationship with this article. Below I have listed a few recent items that have recently been covered in the press that I think may improve the article. The content includes formatted sources. If someone were to find these updates a good use of their time to review, I’d greatly appreciate it. My goal is to always adhere to the Wikipedia rules and criteria. Thank you Khgrove22 (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Khgrove22 I am taking a break from significant editing at the moment. I have added your talk section to the Edit Request queue. With this other editor(s) working on the edit request queue will eventually come to your request. – robertsky (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Your closing of the requested move on Talk:Aramaic
You closed the requested move at Talk:Aramaic#Requested move 27 July 2022 as not moved. This outcome "should be used when a consensus has formed to keep the current title and not rename the article(s) in question." I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion but is far from reflecting the current state of the discussion. You provided no additional comments either. Could you elaborate? S.K. (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@S.K.: There is consensus not to move. Other than the other editor that voted yes, the only one who is actively advocating for the move is you, and despite that, I don't see the others changing their stances or votes. The dicussion ran for 21 days, which is plenty of time to convince the others. – robertsky (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)UTC)
No there’s no consensus not to move. And WP:RMCLOSE says:
"Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions." and
"lack of consensus among participants along with no clear indication from policy and conventions normally means that no change happens (though like AfD, this is not a vote and the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority)."
It seems you didn’t have time to read the discussion and only counted votes. But the most you could do is close it as No consensus if you really did look at it. S.K. (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@S.K. I did read the dicussion. Lengthy one, and re-read it a few times to get the points of the discussion. If you think otherwise, feel free to raise it to WP:MR– robertsky (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Aramaic. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. S.K. (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Move Question
Hi Robertsky,
I have a question regarding page moves that I was hoping you could help me with. I went to draftify Ugo Ugochukwu, but I found that a draft already exists at Draft:Ugo Ugochukwu and was created by a different user. What's the best course of action here? I've seen others move it to a name such as Draft:Ugo Ugochukwu (2), but I wasn't sure if that was appropriate or not. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh At the current state of the mainspace version, I would probably fill a A7/G11 CSD, and request for a salt given the number of recreations. Maybe add in the edit summary that there's already a draft so that the admin reviewing the CSD request may consider that as well. – robertsky (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Hi. Shan is not a separate script, but an application of the Burmese script. (Unicode even uses the same block.) I've moved it back to 'alphabet', though I couldn't move it to the proper title. Could you fix it please? Thanks. — kwami (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: I've reverted your move. There was an RM. If Robertsky wants to move it back, re-open and re-list, that's up to him. Otherwise, it should go through move review. Srnec (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami The move was a result of the move discussion located at Talk:Shan script#Requested move 13 August 2022. There was no opposition to the proposal in the 7 days that it ran. I would question why you didn't register your comment there and then during the course of discussion, but I am fine with reopening and relisting the RM, since the reasoning given by all three involved are varied. – robertsky (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami Why should I? The onus isn't on the closer to inform those who have edited the page before. When I asked the above, I assumed that you had watched the page given your almost immediate ask here after I had done the move. You would have seen the Talk pages updates in your watchlist, if you had checked. – robertsky (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I deleted my watch list last year as unmanageably bloated. I was notified when the rd was reviewed. I don't know why I get those notices, but that's the only reason I saw it. — kwami (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami Well, if you had deleted your watch list last year, it probably is still on your watchlist since you last edited the page in May 2022. Regardless the move discussion has reopened. You can continue on the conversation of whether to move the page there. Cheers! – robertsky (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Editing an article does not put it on your watchlist. I don't watch every article I edit. That's how I got 22k pages on my list to begin with! — kwami (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami It does, unless your user settings had changed. Oh wait.. I know why you get the redirect has been reviewed notification. It is because the redirect page is created by you. When the redirect gets page swapped instead of G6 deletion, the moves put the redirect page back into the NPP queue. A bot now automatically mark certain (if not all) redirects as reviewed. – robertsky (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense.
I'd stopped checking my watchlist because it was overwhelming, so there was no point in even having one. Since I deleted it, I've been rather conservative with adding articles back, usually only doing so if I was putting a lot of work into them or if there was a dispute, vandalism or some other reason for concern.
BTW, I'm well aware that 'script' vs 'alphabet' is not ideal wording for the distinction, given that some RS's make a contrary distinction between 'alphabet', 'abjad' and 'abugida', but no-one was able to think of anything better. I'd be fine with some other WP:CONSISTENT convention, but the distinction itself is robust. — kwami (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@BarrelProof ok. so the sequence of events was that:
I had copied the uppercase (wrong) version into the 'Custom' input. Had I wanted to move to the uppercase version, I would have selected 'Moved' in the RMCloser prompt.
Moved to the wrong version somehow during the manual page move.
Realised that I had moved to the wrong version, thus making a further move to the right version.
Forgot to update closing statement in the talk page. And didn't realised that the talk page somehow still remained at the wrong version.
Now: Updated the closing statement. Moved the talk page to the right version.
I don't really understand your rationale for closing this page as "moved". It was clearly shown that the car company is primary topic by page views (not counting people with the surname, which we generally don't count as none of them as known as *the* Talbot in a Thatcher or Churchill sense). The car company may be defunct, but it seems fairly clear it's still primary by significance and views over other topics, including the dog, which is the only vaguely near challenger. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru I had factored in Port Talbot for the numbers comparison as it was presented in the discussion. I didn't factor in people with surname for the same reason you mentioned above. I don't mind having the thread reopened for further discussion if you want, and since it was opened only for a week. Let me know and I will undo the close and revert the moves. – robertsky (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
What about the views I provided for Talbot (dog) namely 2,277 v 4,735 for the automobile that showed that when all the topics are considered its unlikely primary by usage and the dog and probably Port Talbot may have more long-term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale: sure, but if the two topics in question are the dog and the car, then the more-than-double page views you cite above seem quite convincing. As for Port Talbot, that's an interesting point, but is it ever referred to as just "Talbot" without the Port? If not, then that seems a red herring and we wouldn't really consider it any more than we'd consider "New York" when determining what resides at the York page. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Agree Port Talbot is a PTM and I don't think I've ever heard it called just "Talbot" but when you add all the possibilities its not clear the automobile company is much more likely than the dog and more likely than all the other possibilities. Its a close one but I'm incline to weakly agree with the close. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Robertsky, thanks for your response and I would appreciate it if you could reopen and relist the Tablot discussion please? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru done. I have also reverted the page moves. As for the links to the now automobile redirect that I had done post close, I will leave them as they are for now. If the discussion ends up will either a 'no consensus' or 'not moved', I will circle back and undo my edits on those pages. – robertsky (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB04:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
PFC CSKA-Sofia JSC edit
A club with the name "PFC CSKA-Sofia" absolutely does exist. I advise you not to get involved into a subject that you have nothing in common with.
@Pepkoshah I advise that you take it up in the article talk page rather than here. I don't have an interest the subject at all. I was just processing an request to revert an undiscussed move as a pagemover. – robertsky (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
According to wikipedia: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I have provided many independent secondary sources that are independent of the subject such as from the World Bank, Harvard, Princeton, news, etc. I have also edited my drafts based on past reviewers' feedback. Kindly advise how can I improve on it... Cheers — Davidt1510 (talk)
@Davidt1510:: An analysis of the sources does not support the notability of the subject as the consulting firm. Your opening statement in Formation section conflates the two organisations, your use of pre 2017 sources/awards in post-2017 section also conflates the two organisations. The content also skips the criticisms of the government unit, thus has an element of whitewashing.
On sources:
Idris: Pemandu not privatised, but disestablished on March 1
This indicates that the government unit and private consulting firm are two separate organisations, but your opening statement in Formation conflates the two organisations.
'Too many focuses, making Pemandu less effective'
Not about Pamandu Associates, but the government unit. at least mention in the passing that it engages in a nation wide projects.
"New courier service licence freeze positive for industry — experts"
Not the main subject, but does at least mention in the passing that it engages in a nation wide project.
Malaysia’s Performance Management And Delivery Unit (PEMANDU)
About the government unit, not the firm
Driving Performance from the Center: Malaysia's Experience with PEMANDU
About the government unit, not the firm
"GTP"
dead page. web archive shows Flash object. unable to verify. but since it is the PMO office, then it should be about the government unit, not the firm.
RDB launches program to fast-track private sector-led transformation
about RDB's program. passing mention about the consulting firm.
"Doing, Learning, Being: Some Lessons Learned from Malaysia's National Transformation Program"
this is about the government unit, not the firm. Written in 2015. why is this in the 2017 and beyond section?
New report highlights 20 leading government innovation teams around the globe
press release; non-independent. mentioned in the passing.
WITSA Announces 2020 Global ICT Excellence Award Winners
press release; non-independent. mentioned in the passing
Tying Performance Management to Service Delivery: Public Sector Reform in Malaysia, 2009-2011
about the government unit. not the firm. used in the post 2017 section.
Mapping a Transformation Journey: A Strategy for Malaysia's Future, 2009-2010
About the government unit. not the firm. used in the post 2017 section.
What the other reviewer commented is right, the content needs to be rewritten. At the very least, based on these sources, the government unit should be the focus and article titled as such, with the consulting firm being mentioned as the legacy of the unit. On a seperate topic, you can use 4 tildes at the end of your message, ~~~~, to sign it with a timestamp, instead of manually typing it. – robertsky (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Vaune Phan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hi. This article's title is very misleading. The film is titled Ottu but was made under this name. The other version of the film Rendagam was not released at the specified date, so it makes sense now to move the article to Ottu (film). It is my fault for not directly moving the page (but how would I know the Tamil version would not release). DareshMohan (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ixtal For the article? Not sure. It is something that may be sorted out with a discussion. The article was moved between the two titles in 7 May 2009 and 2021, after a merge in 1 May 2009. No point looking for the history of the other article as it seems to have been deleted under G6 after the merge, and then a redirect was placed at the other title. All the moves were undiscussed. The moves left the talk pages disjointed from their articles, so Soap made a technical request to swap the talk pages to the right titles. The reason as to why the article page could be moved was likely that the redirect page was 1 edit, which meant that the redirect could be deleted automatically as long as that redirect is pointed to the live page, but the talk page could not be moved because both talk pages had significant editing history. For now, I had made a second edit on the redirect in hopes that it forces interested editors to arrive at a consensus before requesting a pagemover or admin to move the article accordingly. It seems that an informal (i.e. not a formatted RM discussion) has been opened on the article's talk page. – robertsky (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your contribution to this RM. I was wondering if you'd consider waiting for a bit more input before closing the discussion. An editor suggested an alternative (moving Thiago Santos (fighter) to Thiago Santos) which I believe is a better solution than my initial proposal, but there were no comments for or against following that suggestion. Thanks! 162 etc. (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
@162 etc. I closed it cuz there weren't follow up conversations for 4 days between your last message and me closing it, and also totally mis-read that thread. I will reopen the discussion. Thanks for following up. – robertsky (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Also trout slap for out of process reversion of the closed discussion. If you feel like the close is wrong, take it on my talk page here first before reverting the close. What you had done, doing WP:INVOLVED close, and reverting the close, were disrespectful to the WP:RM process. – robertsky (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
It most certainly was a SNOW. The fact that you’re still denying it makes it 100% clear you shouldn’t be closing any discussions any time soon. Volunteer Marek 16:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek let's see. Right from the page, The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement.. I find that the opposes have genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. If you fail to recognise those arguments as such, I suggest that you take a chill pill and disengage until you cool your head like some did ask of you on your talk page. – robertsky (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Discovery Channel
Hi Reobertsky
I'd like to query your close at Discovery_Channel_(Australia_and_New_Zealand). The proposed title was rejected by a large consensus in 2019, and I don't think it's correct to then go and move it on the back of a much smaller number of votes just three years later. The original title was the correct one, and I certainly oppose the move, as I did last time. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, although looking again, it seems I initially latched on to the wrong issue here. The 2019 RM was for adding "TV channel" to the disambiguator, which you rightly rejected here. However, it still doesn't look like anyone addressed the WP:COMMONNAME issue in the RM, which should guide our RM decisions. Why was "Discovery Channel" preferred to simply "Discovery"... I may need to do some further investigation on this and will cast a !vote in the reopened RM. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Interview. Primary source. Doesn't establish notability. WP:PRIMARYCARE.
The Wikipedia Library
.jpg)
Hello, Robertsky. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:NUS College, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
Barnstars will be awarded.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unusual Voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sopnendu Mohanty. Thank you..Eesan1969 (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
