User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Chickpea Protein entry “speedy deletion”

Hi Largoplazo, I got the “speedy deletion” you initiated for the Chickpea Protein entry. I understand it was deleted due to G11 section which claims, “the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic.” The Chickpea protein is a completely new development in the line of Plant Proteins, such as Soy Protein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soy_protein and Pea Protein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pea_protein . This development which enables to extract Chickpea Protein from chickpeas becoming food ingredient that will allow to enrich the global food with a new plant protein and produce new meat and dairy substitutes with characteristics which do not exists today is essential for the global nutrition / diet and for the food industry. It was developed by Professor Ram Reifen as part of his research work at in the world-renowned Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment from Israel http://en.hafakulta.agri.huji.ac.il/ , later taken by a startup which its goal is to make it productive, so that it can be exploited by the global food industry and become part of our nutrition.

The infrastructure of this article was actually written by a scientist. I will be very happy if you’ll be more specific and let me know what turns this article into “unambiguous advertising” so I can change it and be able to upload it, as I truly believe that this information is essentially fundamental, and I also understand that it should not be written as a marketing promotional material in Wikipedia.

Thanks in advance, Eli Drapisz --Drapisz (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello. The problem was that the article had the same tone as your comments above: One of excitement about this development, conveying the message of how important it is to the world. Wikipedia doesn't get excited, advocate, impress, convey messages of importance, try to motivate its readers or gain their support, etc. It isn't a place to "get the word out", so to speak. Articles are factual, objective, and neutral. See WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:Advocacy, and WP:PEACOCK for broader explanations. Largoplazo (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

thanks again. ill review and rewrite it.Drapisz (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jessica Valenti

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jessica Valenti. Legobot (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Joong

Hi. You've nominated the wrong page as Nick Joong had become a redirect after I moved it to the author's sandbox. KingAndGod 20:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Then you did that while I was in the middle of filling in my AFD write-up, that's all! Largoplazo (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Dalida

Thanks for grammar edits of Dalida page. I invite you to continue that work during this month while we are updating her page. As a person who doesn't speak english as a main thounge, I need all help frok you. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DalidaEditor (talk • contribs) 11:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion nomination of Convergencia Sindical

Hi Largoplazo,

I received a watch notice of your speedy deletion of Convergencia Sindical yesterday, but was not able to reach the page before it was deleted.

This article was one of several hundred articles I created in 2006 as a concerted push to increase the presence of trade unions on Wikipedia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bookandcoffee/Contributions)

I have not visited the page in many years, and I am not very active these days - but it seems like you may have mis-catagorized this deletion.

Convergencia Sindical is a National trade union centre in Panama. The article was a stub when I created it, but it included the trade union info box, the correct logo, and was sourced from the ITUC Trade Unions of the World publication.

I don't know how/if the article has evolved over the years, but I would ask you to reverse your deletion and perhaps address any editing issues on the page instead.

Cheers, Chris - Bookandcoffee (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I came across the article because it had been listed at WP:Pages needing translation into English. It was entirely in Spanish, and was already tagged as promotional and also as a copyright violation. I took one look at it and found it very much an advocacy piece for the organization's cause, so I tagged it for G11 speedy deletion. If there was an earlier version that was non-promotional and in English, I didn't think to check for one, and I guess the deleting admin didn't either. I'm not an admin so I can't go back and see now, but perhaps User:Seraphimblade could have a look to see if there was a good version to restore. Largoplazo (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I do always look. In this case, anything before the article was made into an advertisement was basically just a one-liner that said it's a trade union. That would've been eligible for A7 rather than G11, but still not a good version. At this point, if there's enough reference material to write about it, best bet would be to start from scratch. We already know it's a trade union, and that's all the pre-spam version amounted to saying. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the info. I should have written "If there was an earlier version that, itself, qualified for inclusion ...". As you've indicated, there wasn't. Largoplazo (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Except that it wasn't a one-liner. It was a valid stub - short, but about a significant national organization, and complete with a reference. It's unfortunate if it was inappropriately developed, but that doesn't make room for a speedy deletion. I appreciate we're all just trying to do good work here - but if you could provide me with the appropriate link I would be happy to contest the deletion. Bookandcoffee (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That's WP:REFUND. Largoplazo (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. But I see with a quick read that REFUND does not cover deletions such as the G11 tag you posted. I'll check in with deletion review. Bookandcoffee (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I did post this to deletion review. I know conversations can quickly get fractured here, so I appreciate the work you're doing Largoplazo - I'm just following through on process as I do think the page is worth keeping. Cheers. Bookandcoffee (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Delete

This is not th first i created that was deleted bu how can actually help with the article creations. This doesnt make sense to me ARMcgrath (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John R. Bolton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John R. Bolton. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Convergencia Sindical

Please do not edit the article until the deletion review is over. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Social Causation/Downward Drift

Hi there. I keep seeing your proposals for deletion of my article. I've corrected your complaints so I'm not sure why you continue to add the same tags.

Also, this page is simply a final submission for a class this semester. It is a collection of data, no personal research or personal opinion. But if you would please just leave it alone for the next week, I will delete it myself.

Gsandler93 (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't keep seeing proposals for deletion because I haven't proposed the article for deletion since the first time. You see maintenance tags that you shouldn't remove until the issues have been resolved. I understand that you don't think these are issues, but I do, so they should stay until either I'm satisfied or a third party reviews the situation and thinks otherwise or makes improvements.

Also, Wikipedia isn't a bulletin board for submitting homework. I'm afraid it's immaterial that you chose this locale for posting it for grading. Wikipedia articles need to be actual encyclopedia articles, reference pieces, which your essay isn't. Largoplazo (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, apologies. I am clearly a newbie on Wikipedia. It wasn't my choice to post the article on here, rather an assignment. I saw your specific critiques and will edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsandler93 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of countries by firearm-related death rate

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of countries by firearm-related death rate. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Drift whale

User:Largoplazo Apparently I stepped on your turf. The article was reformed and carefully edited. Putting that aside, and where NOW is the alleged copyright violation? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen: There's no turf issue here. I think it may just be that you are mistaking revision deletion for deletion of an article.

The copyvio is in the revision for which I've submitted the deletion request. Like all prior versions of any page here, this version has remained in the article's revision history. Because this version contains the copyrighted text, I've submitted this version for deletion, as is appropriate, so that this version isn't visible to the general public. The current content of the article isn't relevant to this; if I thought something was wrong with the current content, then I'd be taking action over that. (If you made your last two edits because you thought I was still finding problems with the current content, that's incorrect.)

For more information about revision deletion, see WP:Revision deletion. Largoplazo (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Replied at article talk page. For some reason, Ping won't work with my user name. But [[User:7&6=thirteen]] does. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Really? A CopyVio notice?

Hi, I've just created Drift whale and in the midst of trying to add other info, I see you slapped a CopyVio notice on. I have been quoting as carefully as I can, no more than a few sentences, with full attribution, and I find this disheartening. Please could you explain what you think I have done wrong. There was nothing on the talk page when I looked. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was a rather lengthy chunk to copy, that's all. The important thing in the article should be the information that is conveyed in that source, not that this particular source used these particular words. The default in Wikipedia articles is to use your own words, and quotations are normally used only when something about the original text, not just the information it conveys, is of particular interest in its own right; I didn't see that here. It seemed rather out of the ordinary, to tell you the truth, and it did seem to me like it could go beyond the bounds of fair use. Largoplazo (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I was in the middle of creating the article, and had a lot more to add from various sources, with all the formatting, images, categories, etc to develop. The copyvio template says "This template is reserved for obvious cases only, for other cases refer to Wikipedia:Copyright problems." You say my first version seemed "out of the ordinary" and the quote "rather lengthy" - in that case, a productive thing to do would be discussion on the article talkpage. I think an "obvious case" would be something like an entire new article being lifted from somewhere else, with no attribution. Instead, your jumping on an article 15 minutes into its creation just discourages me. I don't want to make any improvements to it in case they get rolled back too. What happened to assuming good faith? If you have an interest in the area and want to help improve the article, great, I welcome your participation. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. I wonder if there is any action you could take to resolve (i.e. remove) the copyvio notice. If you aren't allowed to do it yourself (and I'm assuming I definitely am not), then would it be possible to flag it up to the attention of someone who can? As I said, I have quite a lot of positive changes in the pipeline, but don't want to make any additions to the article if they might just all be reverted. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay. I do understand your feeling discouraged, but if an editor believes that content is reasonably likely to be a copyright problem, then leaving it in place while discussing it isn't a safe course of action, because copyright is a legal matter. It doesn't have anything to do with assuming good faith—a copyright violation committed in good faith, whether by someone who didn't think a use of someone's work would reach the level of a copyright violation or by somebody who isn't even aware of the significance of copyright, is still a copyright violation. Attribution is usually a condition of getting permission to use copyrighted material, but it doesn't avoid the need to have permission if the copied material goes beyond the bounds of fair use.

But is it not possible for your to convey in your own words the information contained in the passage you had quoted? Largoplazo (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. When I get discouraged I log on less frequently. I understand that you had reservations about material I was quoting; fine. What I don't understand is why you didn't revert, and discuss on the talk page. Putting up a copyvio notice has meant that I do not want to make any changes to the article until this is resolved. Whether or not my paraphrasing skills then prove to be sufficient is not the question; that would be a good question for Talk:Drift whale, which I had not even had a chance to create.

My question to you was, is there any action you can take to resolve this matter? As you have not, apparently, taken any such action, I found my way to Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Criteria_for_redaction ("Users should consider whether simply reverting or ignoring would be sufficient in the circumstances. If deletion is needed, only redact what is necessary ... 1. Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. ... Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at WP:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion.") and then to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Instructions_for_listing_text-based_copyright_concerns ("Please note the reason for removal in the edit summary and at the article's talk page ... When possible, please identify and alert the contributor of the material to the problem.") But you added nothing to the article talk page (still a redlink) and nothing to my own talkpage.

So, again - is there any action that you are able or willing to undertake, to bring Drift whale to the attention of someone who can legitimately deal with your copyvio notice? I want to get this dealt with, so I can improve the article. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't seem to have conveyed sufficiently the significance of copyright infringement. Unlike a contravention of Wikipedia standards for, say, sourcing an assertion about the demographics of Bolivia or whether a paragraph amounts to prohibited WP:Synthesis, copyright is a legal matter. If a passage is indeed a copyright violation, then it's against the law for us to have it here. The law is not going to wait while we have a discussion among ourselves on the article's talk page. A part of the above that you may not be aware of is that when, instead of directly deleting copyrighted material, one tags it as a problem and reports on it at the copyright issues page, the text is hidden anyway. There isn't any scenario under which the text would be left displayed while consideration was being given to the situation.

You haven't answered my question: Why don't you just do what people usually do with Wikipedia articles and write the information yourself? I'm just not seeing what's so special about this quote. Largoplazo (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I copy edited the article Drift whale and removed the notice. The quote that remains is small and is fair use. 20:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article. But why did you remove the copyvio-revdel tag? Revision deletion for copyright violations isn't based on the current state of an article but on the inclusion of copyrighted material in the revisions listed in the revision deletion request. As it happens, it's really unusual that the tag sat for so long without being attended to by an administrator, either to delete the revision or to explain why not. But you aren't an administrator, so your removal of the tag wasn't an administrative decision. Why do you disagree with removing the revision with the quoted material? (You weren't, by any chance, mistaking the revision deletion request with a request for deletion of the article, were you?) Largoplazo (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

In the absence of a response from you, I've restored the tag. However, on returning here, I also see that the ping was malformed—I guess because you have that equals sign in your user name. I'm going to try again, with an explicit argument number: @7&6=thirteen:. Also, note the last line of the template: "Note to others: Please do not remove this template before an administrator has reviewed it." You shouldn't have removed the tag. Largoplazo (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

For the record: after a week of the copyvio template sitting on the article, and the back-and-forth above, I asked for help (on my talkpage) from anyone able and willing to sort out the matter. Within half an hour one of the editors who monitors such queries jumped in to deal with it. I thought that was the end of it, and got busy adding lots more material to the article, with all the usual citations and paraphrasing. Apparently "able" and "willing" are not synonymous, and that was not the end of the matter. I hope this is. In future, I would ask that if you template an article created in good faith, especially within minutes of its birth, you state why on the editor's talkpage. If you have anything to add to Drift whale, I would be happy to collaborate with you there. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have said anything on your talk page that wasn't in my edit summary. You would still have had questions, you would still have asked them, and I would still have responded. Your continued emphasis on "within minutes of its birth" suggests I haven't conveyed to you the legal significance of copyright infringements. When it comes to those, sooner is safer. Whether the content was added in good faith isn't being questioned, it's simply beside the point. Largoplazo (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Dalida Semi Protection

Can you help me adding semi protection to Dalida. I just realized I did a mistake with adding a template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DalidaEditor (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@DalidaEditor: I just looked at every edit by other editors from the last two days, and every one of them was a good edit. Why do you think the page should be protected?

By the way, please sign your comments on talk pages. See WP:Signatures. Largoplazo (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for signature help. Btw you can look what today happened. At least three times per week several anonimous users just bump in page and change numbers. Sometimes it is enlargement of sales, sometimes it inventing Top1 songs... several people and I, that currently work together in group to improve Dalida article, are very bussy in real life and can't be able 0/24 checking her article. Plus, those other wikipedians usually don't know what are ger sales so when they see change of 140M to 170M they don't take it as an fake info to change. DalidaEditor (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@DalidaEditor: See WP:Requests for page protection. I have to take this opportunity to tell you that I just saw your edit summary that reads "Being president of offical fanclub an collegue of her brother Orlando, makes me have enough information and knowledge. Dalida can be admired only as French singer, and even this Italian part is minor addition. You reverted whole article without paying attention to other things I have edited, you simply deleted them. By that you showed your unknowledge. Don′t put your nose where it doesn′t belong. editing Dalida on social media is business of her association." I recommend that you change your attitude. Wikipedia isn't "social media" in the way that Facebook is. It is not a fansite. In addition, if you actually have a connection with Dalida, then you need to be aware of Wikipedia's provisions regarding articles on topics over which you have a conflict of interest, and you need to be especially careful about bias, subjective language, and giving undue weight to aspects of her life that you consider favorable, trying to cast her in a better light.

Also, there is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia: while you can point out to people that their contributions are inaccurate, or contrary to what sources say, or inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, "Don't put your nose where it doesn't belong" is an inappropriate attitude.

If Dalida was an Egyptian citizen, then it isn't wrong to describe her as Egyptian. It doesn't matter what percentage of her songs were in French or Italian; it doesn't matter whether she was more loved by one country's audience or another. Antonio Banderas has appeared in plenty of U.S. films in English, but it would be wrong to call him anything other than a Spanish actor. Dalida was Egyptian, and your removal of that observation from the article was incorrect. Largoplazo (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for semi protection help. And the thing regarding my bad language is allready solved. I was immediately awarned by other editor who told me same thing for conflict of interest. The thing that I am president of fanclub that exists since 1958 is useless here, because all editors have same rights, and that is fare 100%. But facti is that Dalida never had Egyptian citizenship nor nationality, she was listed as Italian nationality-daughter of Italian emigrants; I have copies of her documents. The person who cited her as Egyptian is obiously a fan, what was okay. Only problem was that I was in lack of time and I quickly undo job of the user while I forgot on discussion page, plus when I saw users explainations why is Dalida Egyptian I became furious that person can just come and type anything. Lack of time took me from nice explanations in fine language. But as I said, we dealed it and I don't have those problems anymore. I am now free in my real life for two months so recently published on discussion Dalida that I am doing a complete renew of her page and everyone is invited to do quality job. I still didn't came to that main intro part. When I do, I will cite Dalida only as French. It is a fact. Don't worry, nice language only :) _{○ DalidaIdeal○} ○ ○ talk ○ 23:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: OneGramCoin

Dear Largoplazo,

I contested the deletion, please check the talk page of the article. And please put a Hang on template on the article. Thanks in advance. I would like to do my best to make this article good and acceptable. I've been editing other Wikipedias too, I think this topic is Wikipedia compatible (notable). In the next few days I am going to expand the article. Thank you for your understanding and patience.

Best regards, Hirannor (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

List of best products

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_considered_the_best

This seems to be a list of best products >.< — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bravenewcloud (talk • contribs) 20:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Largoplazo/Archives, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 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.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, 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. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

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, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carrie Underwood

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carrie Underwood. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:TemplateStyles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:TemplateStyles. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports. Legobot (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tom Dixon (industrial designer)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tom Dixon (industrial designer). Legobot (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Largoplazo/Archives (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #21747 was submitted on Jun 07, 2018 17:23:45. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Michel Aoun

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Michel Aoun. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Largoplazo/Archives, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

लोलेसरा listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect लोलेसरा. Since you had some involvement with the लोलेसरा redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of article Space O Pedia.

I need to know the reason why you deleted Space O Pedia. Jake The Great 908 (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Did you see the message I left on your Talk page? Largoplazo (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello Largoplazo/Archives, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Webjet Exclusives

You probably didn't realize this but the talk page conversation started a day or so after I had done the redirect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: No, I'm pretty sure that 02:16 UTC on 25 July (the timestamp on the launch of the discussion by user JC7V7DC576), 03:26 UTC on 25 July (when I contributed to the discussion), and 03:30 UTC on 25 July (when I placed the proper merge tag on the article) come before 05:14 UTC on 25 July (when you replaced the article's contents with the redirect). Largoplazo (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Sorry was on leave for a few days and did not even realize what had happened. I am new to adding information to the site and I am not exactly tech savvy. I have been in the US Army for nearly 15 years as a 74D CBRN soldier, former the CWS. I have been deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Qatar and Korea. I also hold a B.S. in environmental science and have attended many CBRN related courses. If there is any other way I can prove my credentials please let me know and I will furnish them.

Very Respectfully Wandering Historian Wandering Historian (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wandering Historian: Greetings. There's no need for you to supply your credentials, but I want to clarify something because I think you may have an incorrect impression. While it is certainly useful for people who are experts in a subject to contribute to articles relating to that subject, a Wikipedia article, formally speaking, isn't a compilation of the personal knowledge, experience, and observations of the people contributing to the article, but of information about its topic that is available in what can be classified as reliable sources. Contributing knowledge of your own that isn't expressed in such sources is considered original research, which isn't admissible. Even conclusions that you have drawn on your own from material that is found in reliable sources is considered synthesis, which likewise can't be included. Conversely, an editor who has no background in a subject but finds relevant, reference-quality material in reliable sources may contribute them.

Therefore, by all means please make use of your knowledge and experience to help build Wikipedia, relying on it to understand what's pertinent to a reference article on a subject, but also to guide you in selecting suitable references to cite in footnotes when you do so. Largoplazo (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

PathSolutions dicussion

You are respectively invited to discuss your work to edit PathSolutions and notability, over here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PathSolutions Thank you --Goldenrowley (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Largoplazo

Dear, Largoplazo I find this page Draft:Saeed Aldouweghri for user User:SadKSA and I copy his page to new page Saeed Aldouweghri and this not me it's ALdouweghri big family in Saudi more than one million people. So I tried to help this guy who made Draft:Saeed Aldouweghri And post it to him. I'm sorry if I did something not good I was very active in Wikipedia Arabic helping and translate some English page to Arabic. I will read more about the rules.ALdouweghri (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)