This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
Redirect autopatrol
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
Source Guide Discussion
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
This month's refresher course
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
Hello Etzedek24, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Argento Surfer (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello Etzedek24: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, ★Trekker (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Algoma High School. I actually made a note to myself last night to try and get to it in the coming days! Funny how things like that work out. Thanks again for all the work you do on Wisconsin-related pages, I and others appreciate it! Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm thankful for that too. Some projects/editors/area collaborations have gone away from redlinking even when the subjects are almost a lock for notability and it's good to see that some editors do still believe in redlinks. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. Just wanted to let you know that I removed the speedy deletion tag from this article. It seemed as if the copyvio material was coming from the list of awards, which can't be copyrighted (because it's just a list). The actual prose of the article doesn't seem to be a copyvio, at least based off of the link you provided. Now, I'm not saying that it's a good article. It should definitely be declined as an advertisement. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey there(User talk:Sam-2727)- I'm not really sure how to reply to you as I'm still figuring out the ins and outs of Wikipedia, so I'll attempt to do it here. Thank you for removing the speedy deletion tag, to my knowledge all of the information contained is cited properly. I'm not sure how I can satisfy the WP:NARTIST conditions better. The artist's participation in the Lyon and particularly Venice Biennale is noted (the latter being one of the most important art events globally), has received and there are links included to a number of articles from leading publications from the field (Mousse Magazine, Artforum). In my opinion, this satisfies the conditions of having "been a substantial part of a significant exhibition", and as having "won significant critical attention". I could add a link to his artist page on the website of MOMA? I realised I haven't added the collections in public museums (Musée d'Art Moderne de Paris, the Prague City Gallery etc.), maybe that would help?
Ewakum (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Request on 09:39:28, 28 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Chris M Mass
Thank you for taking the time to review the page I was working on about Hector Michael Patmore. I don't really understand why you rejected it though, so I hope you don't me writing for clarity. You write "I'm not satisfied with the lengthy footnote 6. Pick a few illustrative examples and cite them directly. The same goes for the reviews. Better to pick a few great sources than a pile of mediocre ones." There are only 7 references here and all are taken from leading international scholars in the field (professors from Groningen, Lausanne, etc) whose work has been published by the world's best academic publishers (Oxford University Press among other!). I am not sure how these can be described as 'mediocre'. I cited as many as I did in order to "show significant coverage" ( I could reduce the number, but the last reviewer rejected it because there was "insufficient sources"!). The submission is supported by (in your view) too many reliable sources, so the reason for rejection ("This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources") does not actually agree with your comments.
Similarly, there is only one review of Patmore's work that is cited and footnoted, so I don't understand what you mean by "The same goes for the reviews". This review is published in one of the discipline's leading international journals (again, far from mediocre).
I agree with you that "The grants, reviews, and outside work appear to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC". For an entry to be created the person only has to meet 1 of the criteria from WP:NACADEMIC. Certainly, his ERC grant, which is one of the most prestigious research grants available anywhere in the world, qualifies him.
Thanks again for taking the time to review it and I want to ask you to think again about rejecting it.
(talk page watcher) I don't deal with academics much but to help clear up the confusion on ref 6 - it appears to be a conglomeration of sources all packed into one. Separating those out, I believe, is the ideal situation here. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Chris M Mass: Willsome429 is right here. Those sources should be separated out and linked directly (that is, to the journals or Google Books previews of books), if possible, to help with verifiability. These are rather easy fixes and should not take long. There is no question that this will be approved once this is done. I just like to err on the side of caution with AFC. Etzedek24(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 15:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi - I'm not sure how much experience you have with the {{copyvio-revdel}} requests, but I wanted to let you know that when you request revdel for a copyvio, or anything for that matter, you can't just give us the one problematic edit. You have to give us all edits from that one up until the removal of all the offending material. If I just removed that first edit, the text will stay in and won't vanish.
In this case, you tagged the edit that brought in the copyvio with the start parameter, but you also needed to use the end parameter to add 954501787, which is the diff where you removed the copyvio. It's no problem, as this was a pretty easy one to handle, but in the future it would help the admin who does it if you'd go ahead and give us all of it. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask, and thanks for your vigilance here. :-) Katietalk 20:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Yep, I'm not too familiar with the reporting process but after looking over the redacted edits, I get it now. Thanks for reaching out. Etzedek24(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 20:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Ohio Wikimedians User Group: May 2020 newsletter
General Updates
I hope this message finds you well and in good health during these trying times. Below is a list of some online activities that you may be interested in participating in.
The Wiki Global Check In has started! This initiative is gathering check-ins from Wikimedians all around the world, and asks for a photo that captures something related to life in your context or part of the world during the pandemic.
WALRUS (Wikimedians Active in Local Regions of the United States) is now hosting virtual meetings twice a month on Monday evenings. This is a place to discuss anything Wikimedia, as well as a place for Wikimedians to come together and mutually support each other. The next virtual meeting should be on Memorial Day, May 25th. You can sign up for the Wikimediaus-l mailing list to stay up to date on all WALRUS happenings and to receive meeting invites.
Wikipedians have been busy documenting the pandemic. In Ohio, we have articles on the pandemic in Ohio and in Columbus (the latter of which was written by our newest Ohio Wikimedians member, Ɱ!). If interested, you're encouraged to help update and expand these articles, or even consider creating articles documenting the pandemic in other Ohio metro areas.
If you miss visiting your local museums, don't forget that the Cleveland Museum of Art's entire collection is available online and in the public domain (when permissible). Our WikiProject Cleveland Museum of Art is currently tracking 44 English Wikipedia articles and 40,322 images, which are now acquiring over 2,000,000 views a month. If you're interested in contributing, there is still plenty of work to be done to expand and create new articles!
Movement Strategy
The finalized Movement Strategy Recommendations have been published! This is a clarified and refined version of the recommendations that were released in January.
The Wikimedia Summit 2020 that was to occur in April was canceled, and Wikimedia Deutschland will not be hosting a virtual replacement. In its stead, Ryan Merkley, members of the movement strategy core team, and external consultants are exploring options to move the contents of the conference into a series of virtual events.
Have something for the next newsletter? Add it to our June 2020 draft.
Hi, I don't know you but if I want to remove my grandmother's name from my father's page, then I will do so. It is unfortunate that people feel they have a right to know a celebrity's entire personal life when that is simply not the case. Now, if it was something with statistics or whatever I don't really care but I should have the right to monitor personal information about my own family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryjocosity28 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey Tryjocosity28, I understand where you're coming from, but her name is mentioned in a source on the page (A Chicago Tribune biographical article about her). It is common practice for people to have their parents' names listed in their articles, especially if they are sources. Please see WP:BLPNAME. Good luck with the season and I look forward to watching you at Maryland. Etzedek24(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 21:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, just because it is sourced in an article still doesn't make it acceptable. I understand that many people have their parent's names in their article but say if Ron himself wanted it removed then what? Honestly, I pity that you don't respect our privacy & karma will deal with you. Be blessed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryjocosity28 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
As I said, I understand how you feel, but Wikipedia is an open and free site. We don't remove appropriately-sourced content because someone doesn't like it. Etzedek24(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 22:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
.jpg)
