User talk:Iazyges/Archives/2018/March

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your GA nomination of Marcian

The article Marcian you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marcian for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Katolophyromai -- Katolophyromai (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  • ...and many thanks from me for your review of Þorfinnr inn riki - much appreciated. I will attend to your additional comments asap. Ben MacDui 10:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Delilah

Hi Iazyges! You indicated that you would review the Delilah article. GA reviews are supposed to take up to seven days to complete. It has been 8 days since you said you wuld review the article. Are you able to review the article or is something impeding you from doing so? Let me know! -- MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: I recently took on a large number of GANs, and have been working my way through them. Yours is currently #8 on the list, so I should have it done before the end of the week. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for improving article quality in Febuary 2018! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Another Daily Mail RfC

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

copies of article

Hi Iazyges, Greetings. I am seeking and advice on when a page had created and later moved back to draft page to requested creator to provide source and the name space copy has deleted. The same editor recreated the same content and same title name back to name space. What would be done here where 1 copy in draft and one copy in name space for now same content with same title with the same creator. - see here Brunno Abrahão and Draft:Brunno Abrahão. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 22:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: If the name space copy was deleted by an admin, then the current recreation of it, if it is identical or shares the features leading to initial deletion, can be CSD'd per G4 (recreation of deleted material). If the namespace copy is deleted as such, the draft copy can be kept, as long as there are no copyright concerns. If the mainspace article is kept, than the draft should be CSD'd as a copy of an existing article. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Iazyges, Thank you for the quick respond. What happen if the draft is to be kept for editor to rework on the citation/source and the main space copy to be deleted for their are identical? CASSIOPEIA(talk) 23:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Whichever is deleted, the other should be kept. Now that the article exists in mainspace, work should mostly be done on it, unless he intends a total re-write. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

added Lourdes†
removed AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

  • United States Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
  • Germany FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
  • India Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
  • United States Ceranthor, India Numerounovedant, Minnesota Carbrera, Netherlands Farang Rak Tham and Romania Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leo IV the Khazar

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Leo IV the Khazar you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Western Roman Empire

Can we stop adding Western Roman Empire to WPMILHIST? It's way too broad to be considered part of the project. If we included it, every other country that has ever existed would be added since they've had military aspects to the,. --Molestash (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Molestash: I included it because almost its entire history it was in conflict/at war. I can see the argument for not including it, however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Muhammad in Islam

Hello Iazyges, I've provided citations to the sentences you noted. With due respect, given that I remain busy in my real life and can't give time to Wikipedia everyday equally, will you please slightly speed up the process? -AsceticRosé 05:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@AsceticRose: Certainly, I’m at church right now, but will pass it once I at home, and give prose suggestions when possible. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Iazyges for the sincere efforts. -AsceticRosé 01:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Z44 and Z45

FYI, I've redirected these articles to the class page. Never being finished, there's no way that either could reach GA. You might want to update your destroyer page accordingly. BTW, I don't plan to nominate any of the class topics to FLC, preferring to do one massive topic of all of them. It's just easier on the FLC delegates to do one big nom than many smaller ones.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: I've already removed the other projects, as I don't think any of them have enough info to merit an article. Sounds good on the FLC. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Cool. It might be possible to do an article on all of the projects if you can find enough info. Just something to think about.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll look into it. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aegidius

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Aegidius you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Nearly done. An easy one. You've done a nice job. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Thanks! I’ll make changes as soon as I’m able. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Richly deserved

The Feather Barnstar
I have no idea why you don't have one of these already. But it gives me great pleasure to award you this barnstar in recognition of your high quality work in promoting articles to good and A class over a long period. You are an example to us all. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

JG II and JG III

Hello,

Thank you very much for the speedy review of these two GANs. I found your suggestions helpful, and have rewritten text to oblige them.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: No problem! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hidden Markov model FYI

Hi -- I had Hidden Markov model on my watchlist and noticed your cn tags; I was surprised in a recent GA review to find that GACR does not require inline citations, per WP:SCICITE. In the article I was reviewing, the nominator agreed to put citations on the end of paragraphs, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thank you very much for telling me, I'll revert. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I have to say I was amazed. I thought about starting a thread at WT:GACR to change the requirements to enforce inline citations, but I think there are science and math editors who would object, so I left it. The article I reviewed was Group testing, in case you want to see the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

F. Lee Bailey

Thank you for your review of the article. It was getting lonely. lol. I'll be more than happy to help out with it. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 00:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Police Regiment South

Thank you for the review! --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Epic Barnstar
This is to recognize your work on the Roman emperors, in particular for turning the last Roman emperor stub, Leo II (emperor), into a GA. Fishal (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Fishal: Thank you very much! -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Seeking to be adoptee

Hello. I am a long-time Wikipedia user but have recently begun fixing things in articles. I read about the adoption program, checked the page and found your name based on your interest in history and the fact that you are accepting adoptees. I would like to apply as I'm having a tough time navigating thd instructions, much less the actual places where you do things. For example, it took me 12 tries to make it to this box and have no idea if this is even the right place to make this request. :). If it is, and you are accepting adoptees earnest to learn, please advise wherever that gets done. User name: Johnnybna Johnnybna (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC) Johnnybna (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Johnnybna: Hello, yes this is indeed where you request for me to adopt you. You should create an userpage with {{User Adoptee|Iazyges}}, to allow others to know you have adopted by me. What areas of history are you interested in specifically? If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leo IV the Khazar

The article Leo IV the Khazar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Leo IV the Khazar for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Avar–Byzantine wars

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Avar–Byzantine wars you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

A handful of points. Most of them me being picky to demonstrate that I am doing my job. The article is in great shape for B class and I came close to nodding it through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I have made one change myself. Feel free to revert if you don't like it, but I really found the original wording unclear. A splendid article. I assume that you will be pushing it on for A class or FA. Before you do I would recommend a thorough copy edit.
I seem to have access to a couple of paper sources which you don't, so will be adding a little information shortly. Feel free to change or delete it if you feel that it gets in the way of the flow.
Well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Avar–Byzantine wars

The article Avar–Byzantine wars you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Avar–Byzantine wars for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

ACTRIAL - next steps for the Future of AfC & NPP

Hello Iazyges/Archives/2018, thank you for your efforts reviewing New Page and AfC submissions and your support for the ACTRIAL initiative.

The conclusion to the ACTRIAL report commissioned by the Wikimedia Foundation strongly reiterates our long-time on going requirements for the NPP and AfC processes to be improved. Within minutes of the trial being switched off, the feed was swamped with inappropriate creations and users are being blocked already.
This is now the moment to continue to collaborate with the WMF and their developers to bring the entire Curation system up to date by making a firm commitment to addressing the list of requirements to the excellent suite of tools the WMF developed for Curation. Some of these are already listed at Phabricator but may need a boost.
The conclusions also make some recommendations for AfC.
A place to discuss these issues initially is here where you are already a task force member.

Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. To opt-out of future mailings, go here. From MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aegidius

The article Aegidius you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aegidius for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A nice article and educational too. I enjoyed assessing that. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tiberius (son of Justinian II)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tiberius (son of Justinian II) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves for German destroyer Z32, German destroyer Z4 Richard Beitzen, and Tetricus I. MilHistBot (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

GA reviews

Iazyges, I was surprised when you opened 30 reviews back on March 9. The usual expectation is that a review is completed, or at least well started, within seven days, and doing that with 30 reviews, or even a dozen, is just about impossible. The reason I'm commenting now is that I've just been checking old reviews closing in on four weeks open to see if they need a ping to get them moving again, and I discovered you have four of that vintage where you still haven't done anything but a quick links/images/citations check. It would be very nice if you went back and gave them your full attention.

Can you please hold off opening any more reviews until you've gotten the number open down to the single digits, and then do so at more controlled rate? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing. I only took such a large amount because they were severely backlogged. I took anything that was 7 months or more old, and I viewed it unlikely that anyone would take it in the near future. The ones on hold are marked on hold in my todo list. I don’t intend to take on so many at once again, I just did it this time as reduction method. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Military history February contest

The Writer's Barnstar
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Writer's Barnstar as runner-up in the monthly contest in February 2018. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marcus Annius Verus Caesar

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marcus Annius Verus Caesar you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

GA: People's Anti-Imperialist Associaton

Thank you very much for reviewing the article. :) --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
  • updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Heraclius (son of Constans II)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Heraclius (son of Constans II) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Another fine little article, with not a lot for an assessor to do. Good work, as usual. If you would care to make the corresponding changes to Tiberius (son of Constans II) and ping me I will look at that one. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Done. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
And done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Heraclius (son of Constans II)

The article Heraclius (son of Constans II) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Heraclius (son of Constans II) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tiberius (son of Constans II)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tiberius (son of Constans II) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tiberius (son of Constans II)

The article Tiberius (son of Constans II) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tiberius (son of Constans II) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marcus Annius Verus Caesar

The article Marcus Annius Verus Caesar you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Marcus Annius Verus Caesar for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 05:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marcus Annius Verus Caesar

The article Marcus Annius Verus Caesar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marcus Annius Verus Caesar for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

GA review request

I have 2 GA nominees, David Meade (author) and Jim Bakker. If you would like to review them, feel free to do so. LovelyGirl7 talk 05:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: By the way, feel free to review Jim Bakker if you wish. David Meade passed and is now a GA. LovelyGirl7 talk 15:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@LovelyGirl7: I’ve already taken the Bakker review, will review it as soon as I can. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I’m glad you took it. Just hopefully you can review it whenever. LovelyGirl7 talk 19:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Poll

Regarding the poll you started: please note, as described in the first sentence on the poll page, it's not intended to provide editor reviews for those not intending to request administrative privileges in the near future. Particularly since this is your third time starting a poll, I suggest you would be better served to close the poll, review the advice pages referred to at the of the poll page, and self-evaluate your readiness. If you're unsure about any of the described characteristics, perhaps find a friendly experienced person who could help you out. isaacl (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Isaacl: I am not seeking a general review. I am asking what people think my odds are. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, I have withdrawn the request. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, when I saw your ORCP request, it reminds me of the necessity for editor review to continue to exist; unfortunately there is no consensus for that. Based on my first impression, I think your odds are fairly good (as a prolific GA reviewer and content contributor; not really involved in much politics, which is not exactly the worst thing). If you'd like, I would be more than happy to do a in-depth editor review and reflect on future RfA potential. Alex Shih (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: I would be very grateful for a review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

There was probably a discussion I've forgotten about, but why isn't the poll broad enough to allow a bit of editor review? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: No idea, I am wondering myself. Alex Shih (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Archive 5#Scope! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Editor review

As I have mentioned previously, I think most other editors will see you as a prolific GA reviewer with primary focus on content creation, with minimal interest in wiki-politics. These kind of editors are becoming increasingly rare, so thank you for your dedication to the project. To start with the review: Since the user page is the venue for first impression, perhaps this is just an opinion, but personally I would try to keep top icons on user pages to the bare minimum (particularly ones related to user rights). For instance, I don’t really see any reason to keep the top icons for autoconfirmed, confirmed, autopatrolled and extended confirmed.

A quick run of edit summary usage counter shows that only 42% of your mainspace edits are with summary, and without looking further one may question if you are properly communicating in your collaborative efforts with other editors; I don’t think this is remotely the case, and since the script does not count automatic edit summaries, I wouldn’t worry too much. However, it would be nice if you could describe as many of your edits as possible, even if these edits only involve minor copyediting.

I am not a fan of commenting on CSD tagging, and since you are not really involved in recent changes patrolling anyways, I think it’s okay not to comment. Although if you ever need advice on these areas, Ritchie333 and SoWhy are some of the top experts in this field.

A question: what is your position on A-Class reviews? I am under the impression that A-Class articles are relatively rare, and I usually only see them in MILHIST. Since you are also highly involved in doing A-Class reviews, I suppose one would ask, why not contribute to FAR instead? I was very impressed with your calm demeanor in a rather contentious situation at Talk:Velites/GA2. I do wonder about one thing: I have this impression that many of your GA reviews are relatively short from my inexperienced perspective, while I am certainly not the person to assess, it does appear sometimes the reviews may not be as comprehensive as desired, such as in the case of Talk:Rise of Macedon/GA1 where an reassessment request was initiated by BlueMoonset.

Anyway, seeing you being autopatrolled on Commons is very assuring, which indicates that you are trusted for your grasp of image policies and probably file copyright tags. As I browse through your other contributions across the project, I have noticed that you have volunteered in the past at the dispute resolution noticeboard from August 2016 to February 2017, and I was wondering what made you stop? If I may speculate, I imagine it has to do with some unpleasant situations that were escalated to WP:AE.

When analyzing your pie chart, I notice the high number of userspace edits. Upon a closer look, it appears that you try to organize and keep track of your different projects in a meticulous manner. This is certainly a positive aspect (I try to do the same thing), but I have a feeling that some editors may think differently. That’s about it from me for now with a relatively brief overview. Let me know if you would like to discuss specific points further. I am not sure if you necessary need the administrative tools, but if you are interested, I would seek the opinion from other MILHIST project coordinators. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this Alex Shih. My GA reviews tend to be quite short, as I’m not a fan of demanding prose changes from people, unless it is a topic I am very familiar with and confident in changing the terminology of, so I tend to only make structural suggestions. When I first starting doing it I instant-passed two articles; Blue Moon opened a reassessment on them and guided me to be a better reviewer, which I’ve begun to do much more of now. You are correct in that I dropped out of DRN for a time because of the Cham Albanian dispute, largely because I ended up becoming involved in the dispute myself (a big no-no), and overstepped in my role. I rejoined just recently as I felt confident I can do both properly. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I saw your entry on WP:ORCP last night, but I didn't want to be the first one to add a comment again so I thought I'd wait. I think my main comment is - if you're not frustrated about some backlog or maintenance task that you can't do without the admin tools, don't worry about them. I describe myself as an "editor with administrative privileges" - in other words, while I might have a few extra buttons, when it comes to a content dispute or a debate, I've got no more rights than you. For what it's worth, your actual stats are pretty good - there was quite a bit of kerfuffle with some battleship AfDs last year, but not much else that would gather significant opposition at RfA, at least not obviously. I recall some of your GA reviews were a bit slapdash, but I think it's improved since then as far as I know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your review Ritchie. My main backlog woe is for UAA, which isn’t a very time dependent activity (since most names are simply advertising, not personal attacks), and being able to make such blocks/userpage deletions would be helpful. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
The trouble is, when you get the admin toolset, you get all of it, and there's no technical reason you can't block an established FA writer (if you don't mind having your head stuck on a spike at ANI ten minutes later!) So the community needs to see you can be trusted with all of it, and a good AfD track record that shows you can understand consensus and talk a good argument is essential. I think the best thing to do is get a bit more involved in article rescue at AfD. Find an article that's there, see if you can improve it to the point where everyone will !vote "keep", then do it. Have a go at a few of those, and get involved in AfD debates a bit more over the next few months. Then you might be in a better position. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Iazyges/Archives/2018, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

  • Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

  • While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iazyges/Archives/2018/March&oldid=851029240"