User talk:El cid, el campeador/Archive 6

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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Trade band

I had written the AFD statement in Word when I saw it on the New Page Feed. We applied two different deletion requests at essentially the same time. I decided that, having written mine, we might as well see if the reviewing admin agrees that there is no credible claim of significance. As I have noted in another context, most activities that are done with scripts do not always recognize race conditions, but the result is usually either harmless or positive. Regular edit detects edit conflicts. The Articles for Creation script does not recognize race conditions, but the most common race is that two reviewers decline the same draft. In that case, the second decline message is the one that is saved, and no harm is done. With deletion via Twinkle, the race is recognized, and both deletions get applied. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: - Thank you for the note. I agree with your analysis and have no issue with the subsequent AfD nomination. If CSD is declined, there is always the possibility that it would go unnoticed and the article would remain, and in that case the AfD would be very beneficial as a sort of failsafe. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 20:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

your opinion please...

You started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zaynab Khadr in 2017.

She was in the news again, today, Omar Khadr's sister suing federal government after she was barred from flying back to Canada 2020-11-03

She was in the news only a month after the AFD closed:

And again in 18 months later Omar Khadr seeks Canadian passport to travel, permission to speak to sister

You wrote "Being the sister/daughter of somewhat notable people does not make you notable. I cannot imagine why she would warrant an article."

My answer to that would be, no, in general, being related to someone notable does not make one notable. Queen Elizabeth has a very large extended family. Being her cousin does not automatically not make someone notable.

But most of the two-dozen relatives most closely related to her do have standalone articles, because they received significant RS coverage in their own right. If you look at the next two dozen relatives, some of them merit standalone articles, too. If you look beyond that, at the next 100? Scattered.

Omar Khadr is more notable than his relatives, with the possible exception of his father. Yet some of them received enough RS coverage in their own right to measure up to our inclusion criteria.

So, would you argue for deletion of an article on her, today?

I am pinging the other respondents, and closer @GretLomborg, Saforrest, E.M.Gregory, Störm, and Winged Blades of Godric: Geo Swan (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: Personally, I would still say her notability is completely dependent upon her brother - notice how she is described as his brother in those headlines you cited, and not by name. The (apparent) news was that Omar sought to speak with his sister - not that she herself is notable. The notable stems merely from Omar's own actions, not from hers, and merely speaks about her as she relates to Omar; I just don't see her as being independently notable. By comparison, you could probably find similar sources about any major celebrity's relatives (like "Brad Pitt travels to Canada to visit his mother" or "Messi's sister seen in Antigua and Barbuda"). But that's just my opinion. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 21:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

El cid, el campeador, please consider my comparison to the relatives of Queen Elizabeth. I would dismiss claims similar to yours for all of her relatives who currently have standalone articles. The RS that cover them may also cover Elizabeth, some of those articles may devote more column inches to Elizabeth than they devote to them, nevertheless, the coverage they get, in their own right, their education, their own accomplishments, is sufficient. Elizabeth's great-granddaughter Savannah Phillips is 17th in the line of succession. She is the first relative for whom we don't have a standalone article. But she is only 9 years old, and her claims to fame would amount to being the most mischievous descendant - not enough for wikipedia notability.
WRT your suggestion "her notability is completely dependent upon her brother" - how closely did you look at the RS? For instance, of the 19 paragraphs in Zaynab Khadr, outspoken oldest sibling of Omar, detained in Turkey, 17 paragraphs are about Zaynab, while only four mention Omar.
Today's article Omar Khadr's sister suing federal government after she was barred from flying back to Canada is seventeen paragraphs long. Omar is mentioned in the headline and in four of the paragraphs. Three quarters of the article doesn't mention him at all. I question characterizing the other 3/4 as "completely dependent" on him.
WRT press headlines like your suggested "Brad Pitt travels to Canada to visit his mother" - well, if Mrs Pitt is only known for being his mother then of course she doesn't merit a standalone article. If Mrs Pitt were to receive RS coverage over something else, like founding a charity, of being named in or launching a high-profile lawsuit, and that RS coverage of Mrs Pitt's non-Brad related activities measured up to our inclusion criteria, then she too would merit a standalone article.
Could you please re-assure me that you didn't first see she was a sister to someone highly notable, and jump to the conclusion she could not be independently notable, without actually taking a close look at whether RS supported her measuring up to our inclusion criteria? Geo Swan (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Clarification please...

I took a look at some of your most recent AFD nominations. Your Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Kellogg raised a concern for me.

Part of your nomination states: "There appear to be multiple individuals of this name, including a newspaper writer and an academic. They each appear to have more sources available than this Kellogg." It seems to me the surface meaning of this passage may be that you think we should never have an article on anyone, even if they measure up to GNG, if they have a more famous namesake. If that were true none of the tens of thousands of DAB pages that distinguish between namesakes would be necessary.

I am working on an essay with advice to AFD participants at When complying with BEFORE is not straighforward where I talk about this specific situation - notable individuals with an even more notable namesake. Complying with BEFORE is a lot more work with them. But just giving up? I'm sorry, I don't agreee that should ever be an option.

In this particular case, did you consider you may have found a newspaper writer and an academic who also merit standalone articles?

Are you interested in CGI? In CGI in movies and videos? Did you consider this article when you considered whether Kellogg merited a standalone article? It seems to be saying that this particular gatorade commercial he directed made noteworthy advances in CGI. Geo Swan (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate you going back and looking at my prior AfD nominations. However, I think the nomination speaks for itself. If you have concerns about the deletion you can take it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you think that I am an altogether poor editor, I invite you to open up a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and suggest that I be banned from editing. But ultimately, this is not my job, and I don't feel the need to go through and explain all my past actions to you in detail, especially where the actions clearly speak for themselves. So, yes, I appreciate this newfound attention, but there are other avenues to take them up at, and rehashing my prior AfDs will not accomplish anything since I can't un-delete anything anyway. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm. I am working on an essay I think is relevant here - every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment. Who says I am right? Maybe you are right.

Actually, I already started drafting User:Geo Swan/David Kellogg v2.0.

I would never consider going to ANI to suggest blocking AFD nominators who can't be counted on to effectively comply with BEFORE, because ineffective compliance with BEFORE is routine.

You wrote, above, your "actions clearly speak for themselves". Well, you used a questionable justifications for deletion -- "the guy has more famous namesakes, who we haven't covered." You also wrote "he has a lot of music video and ad credits, but these are, as admitted by the article 'partial' credits, meaning he worked on a team." The article may have said or implied these were "partial credits" I can't see the old article, so I am going to have to take your word for that. But, do you think it was sufficient to trust your interpretation of what the article said, without checking to confirm this for yourself? During my research I found the man directed hundreds of ads. He didn't work as part of a directing team, he bore the sole directorial responsibility.

With regard to "detailed coverage" - there are two schools of thought among those who generally favor deletion. One school demands BLP lay out the mundane milestones of the subject's life, date and place of birth; detailed records of schools attended; dates of marriages, children, earlier careers before the events that established their notability. The other school refers to the mundane milestones as "puffery", because everyone is born, went to school - they argue puffing the article up with mundane milestones is a ploy to mask the fact the person didn't have sufficiently notable events establishing notability.

DGG pointed out that we cover people for the notable events they played a role in, or rather the notable events they played a role in that were written about by RS.

So, when you came across the David Kellogg, and it triggered your concern, I suggest your next step should have been to ask yourself is David Kellogg a genuinely non-notable individual, or is this a weak article that fails to explain why David Kellogg is a genuinely notable individual? Really, the only way to answer this question, is your own effective web search. Your nomination didn't mention he was a Professor at the ArtCenter College of Design. Shouldn't it have done so?

I really hope you consider the advice in every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment. I am sure you have come across people, in real life, who consider any question, no matter how tactfully it is phrased, to be a personal attack. Some of those people can be found on the wikipedia. I encourage you to not follow their example. Geo Swan (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll say this: if you publish that draft as it stands, I will more than likely again nominate it for deletion because being mentioned in multiple sources does not establish notability. You have not demonstrated any in-depth coverage of the topic in any of those sources; a single article about his Gatorade article being a bit neat is not enough. I continue to see no evidence that he is notable or deserving of an article. I said there are multiple people by the name because I searched for content on him and was unable to come up with anything - the sources were concerned with different individuals. Don't read more into it than is there. I really enjoy editing WP but I don't enjoy counterproductive discussions that do nothing to further the purpose of WP. You came onto my page asking my opinion about an AfD from 2018; I kindly explained. Then for some reason (I will assume good faith) you went digging into my history and found another AfD nom you apparently disagree with. Now you want me to defend both, in excruciating detail. But I think my nomination, along with those who voted to delete, along with the admin who found the deletion proper, speak for themselves, even if you try to find hidden meanings in what I said. I am more than happy to discuss things. But I don't feel like explaining every action I've taken to you simply because you disagree. I have said what I meant and now I would be happy to move on. You don't need my permission to make drafts or publish article; I don't need your permission to nominate things for deletion. So, cheers. No hard feelings, I hope. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject template

I see at Wikipedia: Help desk you said you went ahead and created a template. I have tried creating a template on my username's sandbox, but to no avail. Do you know what I am doing wrong? Vorbee (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe this has been resolved but if not let me know! ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 21:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

~Many thanks

Dear User: El cid, el campeador, many thanks for creating a template for WikiProjecct Mysticism. How would I go about getting this on the talk page of the article on Mysticism? Vorbee (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I’m happy to help @Vorbee:. To put in on a talk page you just put {{Template:WikiProject Mysticism}} at the bottom of the talk page header, by the other wiki project notices. I am currently on mobile and it’s hard to edit WP effectively but on Monday I can go ahead and add it so you can see what I mean, unless you understand. Cheers! ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 21:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User: El cid, el campeador. I have tried putting the template on the talk page of the article on mysticism this morning (Monday 8 November 2020) and it seems there now. Many thanks for your help - it is appreciated. Vorbee (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Titoo

There was a salvageable redirect to Nipple tattoo under that article.--Laun chba ller 13:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Launchballer (talk · contribs) - I see, thanks. However, the copyvio still needs to be revdelled. EDIT: the CSD notification was sent automatically when I tagged the page, so apologies for that, just realized what was going on. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio in edit history

If there are copyright violations in the revision history of the redirect Titoo, consider asking an admin to revision-delete them. Also consider checking the contributor's other contributions, he may have put the same text elsewhere.

You MIGHT try using Template:revdel-copyvio but it would have to be placed BELOW the #redirect or it would "disable" the redirect. You MIGHT instead put that template on Talk:Titoo with a |comment= saying that the copyright violation is in the page history of the redirect itself. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Oops I just realized that's what you did in the first place.[1] davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello El cid, el campeador,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Pi314m

Please state where Pi314m requested to revert User talk:Pi314m to an earlier version. —Anomalocaris (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Wikipedia:Help_desk#rollback_to_20Jan2021 ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

"Shia Islam/On this day/Jumada al-awwal/24" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Shia Islam/On this day/Jumada al-awwal/24. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 29#Shia Islam/On this day/Jumada al-awwal/24 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

dammit

I spent ages typing up those refs, and then edit conflicted with you - you did a better job than I did. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Oh no!! My apologies. I wish there was a way to avoid edit conflicts, but I guess it's just a case of great minds thinking alike and trying to make the same changes. Cheers! ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 20:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

El cid, el campeador, no apology necessary! We both thought the same thing, and set about doing something about it. I kind of feel that in this day and age there ought to be a way of seeing that someone else is editing an article at the same time as you, but meh - we do what we can with the tools they give us. I was just amused that we were adding the exact same sources (i.e. the first ones that Google provided...). Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 20:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm what's the deal with my grammar?

Hi, how about correcting it....also "disruption"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joujyuze (talk • contribs) 14:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

For having read the talk page...well I am not a disruptor but, well...yes the article is focused at United States. And i've added why.

@Joujyuze: - the edit I found the most troubling was "Just hang yourself pile of cans. You're useless. You are the true vandal. I HOPE YOU DIE." I fully appreciate that ClueBot is a computer program, but encouraging suicide is still not something we support around here. Just please make sure your edits are productive from now on and you'll be fine. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You called my first edit vandalism and so vandalised it.However, I did not put this in the article. And for that matter of saying what I said, I am sorry really.

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Crusading on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits at Taxation in Puerto Rico. Many of your edits (like this one, this one and most of this one) were quite helpful to readers but others, such as this one this one and this one, actually removed cited material. If you can cite a WP policy for the removal, you can add the policy to the edit summary section so your contributions will not be brought into question. This article is the result of a recent (November 2020) and week-long consensus by 3 editors; you can see it here. As such, it would likely be best if you first sought to discuss any major edits in the article's talk page to give others the opportunity to chime in, as some changes may have been considered before already. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Battle of Chawinda on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Hi! I'm new to this and realized there are some very biased things on Wikipedia. Was attempting to remove the bias. Clearly there is a lot to learn about the format here and differences between different types of edits. How do you suggest I go about correcting the articles? Thanks! Metalart88 (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I will reply at your page. Thanks for the note. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Blue Film - Lo-Fang Cover Art.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Blue Film - Lo-Fang Cover Art.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"Aaugh" - Charlie Brown ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Who is going to do the disambiguation page if we don't signal a need for the page? MaynardClark (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Demon Slayer primary topic

I see you reverted my edit. Please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demon_Slayer_(shogi). It is confirmed based on the huge majority of views going to Kimetsu no Yaiba that this is the primary topic. This should be moved above. Please let me know if you have questions. Marty2Hotty (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Marty2Hotty: The consensus that I determined was not for primary topic, but for a disambiguation. Even if the Demon Slayer (shogi) entry is moved to the bottom (I wouldn't be opposed per WP:DABORDER, since traffic was mentioned a lot in the RM), it should not be in a "See also" section, as that would only apply to pages with similar titles (e.g. Demon Hunter if somebody wanted to add it). Placing something above the first line that reads "Demon Slayer may refer to:" would be reserved for titles that occupy the base name, and the disambiguation page is actually at Demon Slayer (disambiguation) instead of the base title. That does not apply in this situation. Each entry should have its own article as well, not multiple links to different sections. -2pou (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@El cid, el campeador: Thanks. I moved shogi to the bottom as per the DABORDER information you provided without "see also". Thanks for the Demon Hunter example and the information. If/when more articles are created from Demon Slayer Kimetsu no Yaiba, they will be added to the DAB. Marty2Hotty (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Snake oil on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Arameans on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Yannick Filipović series

El cid, this template is already nominated for deletion for July 26. See here. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you WikiCleanerMan!! I am perplexed as to HOW I could have missed that? But I appreciate the heads up. Cheers! ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Govvy (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Well deserved, admittedly!! 🥴 --‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Abolitionism in the United States on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

Hello El cid, el campeador,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

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 or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Bootleg Series Vol. 14 - More Blood More Tracks Cover Art Bob Dylan.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Bootleg Series Vol. 14 - More Blood More Tracks Cover Art Bob Dylan.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ravenna (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Ravenna. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Shusha on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:African Dawn, African Flight

Hello, El cid, el campeador. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:African Dawn, African Flight, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)