User talk:MordeKyle/Archives/2017/February

"Message" on my talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just to make it clear – you can keep advices like this to yourself. There doesn't have to be an edit summary for every edit a user makes. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sabbatino:Well you are clearly here for a collaboration... wow. Anyrate, see Help:Edit_summary#Always_provide_an_edit_summary. Of course it's not a rule. Maybe if you would have read the advice I let you, you would have seen that. Edit summaries are necessary for collaboration.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Just because you leave an edit summary everywhere, that doesn't mean that other users should also do that all the time. It was a minor edit so there's no need for that. Even your link states that "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit" (I'm aware of the "especially..." part), so it's not necessary to leave it with every edit a user makes. You can leave such messages on newly-registered users' talk pages as they most likely wouldn't know that. Was my comment harsh? I admit that it was. Why? Because I don't need such childish advices. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: Again, you fail to read the message given to you. As you can see that I wrote above:

Of course it's not a rule.

I am clearly indicating to you that it is not a rule. It also doesn't matter if it is a minor edit, or a whole page overhaul, it is still good practice to include an edit summary, even if it is brief. However, I can see by your tone and immediate jump to near hostile attitude, that you are not interested in a collaboration. Please spend you precious time somewhere besides my talk page, since it is clearly so important to you that you can't waste 2 seconds to type a brief edit summary.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I saw the "Of course it's not a rule." part written by you, but you fail to read what I wrote to you. I'm not the one who misunderstood the message. It's you, and at the moment you're the one, who is hostile, but that's your problem. I can say the same to you about my talk page – stay out of there. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: First of all, I left a template on your talk page, which is beyond acceptable, so ok. Second, I'm not misunderstanding anything. I have clearly stated that it is not a rule, because it isn't. I have also clearly stated that it is good practice to leave an edit summary to help with collaboration, which it is. Third, I wouldn't call myself hostile, I'm not exactly being friendly with you, but that's only in response to your attitude and tone. And finally, you again failed to read something I wrote, specifically, where I told you to no longer spend time on my talk page, so please adhere to that.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 22:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Declined speedy deletion, and AfD notice

Hello MordeKyle. Speedy deletion work is important and I do appreciate the effort. I would just ask that you please review the criteria carefully because accuracy is also important. On that issue, I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Joseph Earl Blackfoot as an article that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the topic under CSD A7. That criterion did not apply because even though the article's prose did not appear to indicate "importance or significance", it contained citations to apparent secondary sources. You noted some specific concerns with WP:NCRIME and WP:BLP1E, however. As such, I have nominated the article for deletion (as a procedural nomination, I don't have any view on what should happen with the page), so feel free to contribute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Earl Blackfoot. Thanks.Appable (talk | contributions) 18:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Appable: Thanks. Thought the chief complaint was with WP:BLPCRIME, not WP:NCRIME. As it is unknown whether or not he is alive, he has not been convicted of a crime, and therefore we should assume that he is innocent of a crime he has not been convicted of. Also, it should be noted, that the article could have also qualified as a wholly negative page under CSD G10 CSD A10.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you mean G10, not A10? Adam9007 (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: I do, thank you.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The "unsourced" component of G10 would prevent such a deletion, but of course it's something worth noting for deletion. It's something that can potentially be resolved through editing rather than deletion, but I'm not sure for this particular article. Appable (talk | contributions) 20:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Appable:.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello MordeKyle/Archives/2017,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 816 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello MordeKyle/Archives/2017,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 816 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)