User talk:Lembit Staan/Archive 7
 | This page 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. |
Discuss in the Talk Page?
You edited the template questioning the notability of Naked Giants, the band has been referred and reviewed by Billboard, Allmusic, and The Seattle Times. Also, the band has worked with notable people such as Steve Fisk, Car Seat Headrest, and Ron Gallo. They are also on a major label. If you could explain the notability issues in the talk page that would greatly aid my ability to improve the article. Bkdb44 (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Natureium. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Test article (food and medicine), and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Natureium (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Test article (food and medicine) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Test article (food and medicine), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Britishfinance (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- If US FDA is not reliable source for you, then you are free to request a RFC. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Lion Versus
Hi. I'm confused about this revert [1] with edit summary "not in the sources cited." The language I changed it to was: "...a project of former members of...Nashi". The source says: "Some of the prominent projects of former Nashi activists are StopHam..." [2] at p. 322. The source doesn't say "...launched as a subproject of...Nashi", the language you changed it to. "Former Nashi activists" means they weren't part of Nashi when they started StopHam. What am I missing? Levivich? ! 00:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- I put the source back and changed prose to match the source closer. I trust that resolves it but please let me know if not. Thank you. Levivich? ! 01:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Why did you restore the references section? The article has no references, so why does it need a section header with no content? 208.95.51.53 (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- @208.95.51.53: Because this is a special section: articles must have references and it is an extra reminder that something is wrong. And it will save time to these good men who will add references.
- By the way, if you want to edit wikipedia seriously and talk to people, get yourself user name, so that next time you edit from different IP I will know I am talking to you. If you are just fooling around, just accept that experienced wikipedians know what they are doing with your edits. Of course you may ask questions, out of curiosity, which is good, and I did answer you, but just don't start reverting people, as many brave IP editors do, you will be blocked from editing, after wasting several wikipedians' time.
- In any case, your edits aimed at improving wikipedia are very welcome, despite by a bit grumbling tone. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, my experience shows I cannot expect a good faith from a random IP. Still, I answered you question, I did not insult you, I just warned you about typical bad behavior I see from IPs 90% of the time when I revert them. Also, if you don't want to have a user name, it means you don't respect other wikipedians, you only respect your whim to create communication inconvenience for others. May be yours is a good, decent IP and in the future I will respect you, but I simply cannot remember it for longer than a week. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Cells scaffolding
Hej, I have just found your request for clarification here: Special:Diff/745361938 and I'd like to inform you I have added some explanation for the term: Special:Diff/881751621. I hope it meets the readbility level required by WP, but feel free to correct, if needed. I'd like to expand my note into a separate article, alas I'm not familiar enough with that branch of science. Wszystkiego dobrego. :) --CiaPan (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Lem
Moved to Talk:Stanisław Lem's fictitious criticism of nonexisting books. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I just stubbed this and realized we don't have an entry for his interview with Lem... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Could you confirm that you are ok with hook alt 2? Would be a shame if this is rejected from DYKing... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Done and DYKing. Through I am not sure if the best title is the 1st or 2nd edition? Do comment on talk if you want to move it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Staszek Lem! Hungarian nobility consisted of kindreds (clans, in contemporary Latin term: genus plural genera) until the early 14th century, somewhat similarly to the Polish heraldic families. Most of the later noble families originated from these kindreds, so the definition of the Balogs as "family" is incorrect and not confirmed by the sources. Consequently, I reverted your move to rename the page. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Norden1990: - What about other entries in Category:Hungarian nobility which are called "... family" ? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I do not understand. What entries do you mean? --Norden1990 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Norden1990: Just look into the category. Entries like Dávid family, Hoyos family, see more yourself; "family", not "genus". By the way, why "House of Iturbide" is in this category? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Several medieval noble families came from the "ancient" kindreds, which had disintegrated by the early 14th century. For instance Báthory family originated from the Gutkeled clan (or genus), alongside other families. There is a category for Hungarian genera. House of Iturbide --> it's obvious error, they did not belong to Hungarian nobility. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Norden1990: Just look into the category. Entries like Dávid family, Hoyos family, see more yourself; "family", not "genus". By the way, why "House of Iturbide" is in this category? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I do not understand. What entries do you mean? --Norden1990 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The same city
Hi Staszek,
So you are from Białystok, like me :-) I see that your English is very advanced. Here, in Poland, almost everyone learns English, but almost no one speaks. Some of them have been learning English for 20 years, but can't say even simple sentences. Several years ago I decided to switch to English, still living in Poland, only to be "born again" in a second language. And indeed, it works. But the transition took many hours a day for five years :-) And even though I have no talent for languages, English is my passion now, and I am entirely self-taught. I prefer American English because it is more common on the Internet and to me sounds better. Correct American pronunciation is to me crucial, and maybe I already sound like natives. Of course I can speak English but I would not say that I am fluent. As for Stanisław Lem, I used to read his books, which were part of my childhood :-) Vikom talk 17:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Vikom: Mieszkam w Stanach już ponad 20 lat, jednak niektórzy wikipedyści wciąż narzekają na moją angielszczyznę :-(. I am taking it easy, because it was never my intention to gain a perfect command of English, neither in speaking nor in writing; I am leaving this to my children :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Now everything is clear except for one thing: I expected your response in English, not Polish. But at first you wrote only one sentence, in Polish. It wasn't until later that you added two sentences in English. So let me describe my first impression:-)
- We are in the English Wikipedia, right? In addition, you are an autoreviewer, extendedconfirmed, patroller, reviewer, rollbacker, and have made over 49 000 edits. This is impressive! Your Polish sentence was perfect, but you could have easily written: "I have been living in the US for over 20 years, however some Wikipedians still complain about my English." Then, why didn't you do it? I am shocked. What was the reason? Were you afraid that I might find some mistakes? I am only a self-proclaimed copy-editor who still learns English. You may well find mistakes in my discussions, which are readily available. By the way, if you find any, show no mercy and point them out. I will be very grateful :-) I wrote: "the transition took many hours a day for five years". Now I will confess that "many hours a day" means actually "10 to 16 hours a day". I know, it sounds crazy :-) However, I have never used any textbooks! It would be too boring.
- Native speakers, especially well educated, rarely make mistakes, but they are not perfect, and some mistakes are typical for them. For example they often say: "often times", "the reason is because", "didn't used to be". And misplaced modifiers, like "He only died last week", are very common. Besides, there are also illiterates, who are native English speakers. Whenever I have a problem with expressing my thoughts in English and ask a native speaker to help me, he or she usually has exactly the same problem.
Chaim Rumkowski
I encourage you to participate in resolution of the current dispute on the following page Talk:Chaim_Rumkowski#Current_dispute
Cautious (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.18
Hello Lembit Staan,
- WMF at work on NPP Improvements
Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
- Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
- Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
- Reliable Sources for NPP
Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
- Backlog drive coming soon
Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
- News
- Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.
- Discussions of interest
- A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
- There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
- What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
May 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Solaris (2002 film). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Eric talk 18:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Block
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 19:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Lembit Staan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Sorry, I did not violate 3RR. If you look into edit history carefully, each time I removed a different piece of unreferenced text unreferenced part of the article, from different bullets and sections. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I make errors, three. This is one of them. You are right — that's my mistake. If text was merely longstanding, then that's not a revert. Unblocked with apologies. El_C 20:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) You may like to have a look at WP:3RR again, specifically the part "whether involving the same or different material". I am not necessarily a fan of bright-line rules, but the community has agreed upon it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- In any case, the comment
each time I removed a different piece of unreferenced text
is clearly wrong. stwalkerster (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)- What is wrong in removing different non-related unreferenced texts? It is not that I was removing different pieces of the same text chunk. This of course would look ugly. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- In any case, the comment
- Yes, the policy says "the 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material". I was not reverting "same or different text; I was removing different pieces sitting there tagged since March 2018. Under your interpretation a rogue page owner may effectively block any edits of a article. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Staszek Lem, I'm commenting here because I value your contributions. I'd like to point two things out before this gets potentially problematic.
- Although an experienced editor may not consider it to be necessary, reading the above-linked guide to submitting an unblock request may make you reconsider the request. Removing it yourself instead of having an administrator decline it may be beneficial, but I am not in a position to ask you to do so.
- The German term military night may be relatively unfamiliar here, but it has an article here too.
- Finally, I'd like to thank you for being a constructive editor who happened to make a mistake and is very likely able to learn from it. I make errors too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- I guess I'll need to have a closer look as the unblock request was now accepted with an apology by the blocking administrator. Please disregard my advice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Staszek Lem, I'm commenting here because I value your contributions. I'd like to point two things out before this gets potentially problematic.
@El C: I'm not saying the unblock was unjustified; I believe it to be justified mainly because Staszek Lem is very unlikely to continue reverting. I'm questioning the reason given for the unblock, however, as it does not seem to have been a mistake.
But well, in the end, this is just me trying to justify my above advice, hoping not to look too bad myself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- <sigh>, well, shit happens. Anyway, I will not edit the article until the OP has chance to answer in the article talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- ToBeFree, hah! I appreciate that. Perhaps I shouldn't be so trusting. I won't re-block, but I will note it in the block log. El_C 21:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Staszek Lem, feel free to use the talk page (I have unblocked the other user now to be even-handed), but please do not edit the article itself in any way for 60 hours. Looks like my incompetence is your good fortune. El_C 21:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Discussion of link language wrapper templates (June 2019)
A discussion has started about wrapper templates of {{Link language}}. You may be interested in participating because you participated in a related previous discussion. Retro (talk | contribs) 03:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Antonio Zamora article - when wikilinking you better check where the link leads
Just to clarify, I noticed that the wikilink to the Cycle basis page had been removed, without any mention; I thought that maybe it was in error, or you hadn't seen the single sentence on that page referring to SSSR. I am aware that the SSSR link goes to a disambiguation page, and then onto the Cycle basis page, but thought that would at least make it clear where it was intended to refer to. The only reason I added the wikilink to the Cycle basis page in the first place was that it uses a citation from Zamora. However since SSSR unfortunately doesn't have a page of its own I will leave it off. Ray3055 (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Сolumnar basalt listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Сolumnar basalt. Since you had some involvement with the Сolumnar basalt redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Null Result/Nullus Resultus
Hello. May I ask why you removed this bit from the Null Result page?
"The term is popularly given as the translation of the scientific Latin nullus resultarum, meaning "no consequence", but this is actually grammatically incorrect and not the phrase's origin. The correct Latin would be nullus resultus."
The Latin matter had already been discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Null_result#Nullus_Resultarum
I will change it back in the meantime.
Thank you, Issacus Issacus Divus (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok...
(moved from my talk page to Talk:Null result)
Your edit to Hasanaginica
I restored your edit to this article. It was caught in-between a few edits by an IP editor that were not improvements and got mass reverted. Sorry about the inconvenience. Best, Jip Orlando (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Your revert to Hanlon's razor
Hi, how do you figure that this is correct?
Screenshot DJ Doena (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- @DJ Doena: See Talk:Hanlon's_razor#Earlier_attributions. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
A goat for you!
.jpg)
Thank you for taking the Boy next door argument to RfD - I hate to be insistent like that, and thank you for being civil. Cheers!
‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
About your move at Black Oceans
I don't think we should move articles on books to English title if no official English title exists? (If you reply here, please WP:ECHO me, TIA). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: We better discuss the issue at WT:TITLE. Let me peruse this guideline first. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Even more relevant: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello Lembit Staan,
- Backlog
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
- Coordinator
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
- This month's refresher course
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
- Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
- Paid editing
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
- Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
- Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
- Not English
- A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
- Tools
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Staszek, thank you for your interest in the Ore Mountains debate. Reading your comment, it sounds as if you are in favour of keeping the English name rather than moving to the German name. If so, you need to vote Oppose rather than support. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Apologies
My apologies for the erroneous warning. I didn’t realize you made a mistake. --IanDBeacon (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Question
Hi, Staszek
I have a question to you (Polish is my native language but I do not speak English pretty well). Could you see here? What do you think about this transtaltion from PLwiki? Currently I am having hard time to get this article better because of I can not write in English in literary way and I do not know mechanism of ENwiki quit good which is other than on Polish Wikipedia. Anyway the article is nearly already. Could you help me improve the three references and describtion of the photos? Cheers Dawid2009 (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@Dawid2009: I will see what I can do. Which three references are you talking about? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- pl:Najświętsza Maryja Panna Królowa Polski/User:Dawid2009/The Most Holy Virgin Mary, Queen of Poland - 5, 9, 10 - This is my translation from PL and these references do not work. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, this was on my list of articles to create :) I've added one more academic source, I think we should be able to expand it into a WP:DYK :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: Sorry, I do not like WP:DYK. I am editing for fun, not for glory of wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Requested move
Requested moves can only be reopened by the closer and only after discussion. So please talk to me and tell me what you think is the best way to proceed. P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 21:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Notability of Professor Tarantoga
I am currently involved in cleaning up articles that fail WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG/WP:PLOT (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements) and I just came across Professor Tarantoga. I'd usually just WP:PROD it but since it is yours I figure I'll ping you and see if you can expand it with sources that discuss the character's literary significance and such before I add it to the chopping bloc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Lovers (stock characters) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lovers (stock characters) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovers (stock characters) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Sharyl Attkisson
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sharyl Attkisson. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
DYK for A Stanislaw Lem Reader
On 11 December 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article A Stanislaw Lem Reader, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that A Stanislaw Lem Reader showcases the work of one of the most widely read science fiction writers, including interviews on the relation of literature to philosophy and science? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A Stanislaw Lem Reader. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, A Stanislaw Lem Reader), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Unicode
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Unicode. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
ANI topic
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Staszek Lem and unilateral merges of Donajowsky
New Page Review newsletter December 2019
- Reviewer of the Year
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.
| Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rosguill (talk) | 47,395 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 2 | Onel5969 (talk) | 41,883 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 3 | JTtheOG (talk) | 11,493 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 4 | Arthistorian1977 (talk) | 5,562 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 5 | DannyS712 (talk) | 4,866 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 6 | CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) | 3,995 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 3,812 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 8 | Boleyn (talk) | 3,655 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 9 | Ymblanter (talk) | 3,553 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 10 | Cwmhiraeth (talk) | 3,522 | Patrol Page Curation |
(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.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)