User talk:NoonIcarus/Archive 8

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

Thank you for the holiday wishes[edit]

Bringing you warm wishes for the New Year!
Que antojo y añora con las hallacas y pan de jamón!
In the midst of the snowy season, sending you some cheer with the sounds of nature I enjoy in my garden when the Indigo bunting return with the warmer weather.
May you and yours have a healthful, happy and productive 2022!
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: This is such a heartwarming message, thank you so much! My same wishes for you and your loved ones :) Best regards! --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dirección Opuesta moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Dirección Opuesta, is not suitable 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. BOVINEBOY2008 23:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Iliana Hernández has been accepted[edit]

Iliana Hernández, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rusalkii (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Gloria Lizárraga de Capriles[edit]

On 13 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gloria Lizárraga de Capriles, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when elected as mayor, Venezuelan politician Gloria Lizárraga de Capriles did not have her own office and worked from a shopping mall? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gloria Lizárraga de Capriles. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Gloria Lizárraga de Capriles), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prensa Latina status[edit]

I can't find anywhere in the RS/N archives or on the RSPS page where Prensa Latina has been deemed unreliable. Not doubting it, just wondering to what extent (unreliable for Cuban related topics? all topics? no idea.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Skarmory: Hi! No worries! I can imagine that the reduced mentions of Prensa Latina are due to its limited use in the encyclopedia. Apparently in Xinhua News Agency's RfC Prensa Latina was deemed unreliable (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 312#RfC: Xinhua News Agency), and in HispanTV's RfC (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 265#RfC: HispanTV), it is mentioned how Prensa Latina has repeated anti-semitism claims, although admittedly it was not the main discussions subject in neither. I can understand that use can be considered in topics unrelated to sports, but given the experience and previous discussions on state media outlets I believe one can't be too sure. Best regards! --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I found a better source in the case I was looking at and re-added the info. Good to know for the future, though! Skarmory (talk • contribs) 13:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Skarmory: Oh, excellent! I've sought to replace the sources when removing then, but have been unable to in some case. Many thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akane Yamaguchi[edit]

Hello. Help improvements. Thanks you. 58.186.91.167 (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Gladly! Could you please be more specific? --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El malquerido moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, El malquerido, is not suitable 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. BOVINEBOY2008 23:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agencia Venezolana de Noticias at Cruce a Nado Internacional[edit]

Hi. I have reverted your change at Cruce a Nado Internacional here because the basis you used is an essay written, in the bulk, by yourself. Please point to a WP community consensus, such as P&G, if you want your edit to stay. Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mercy11: Hi! Thank you kindly for your message. As you can see here, the essay was not started by me, and many other editors from the WikiProject have contributed in it over the course of more than two years ever since. The outlets in question, being in a conglomarate, replicate the articles published by others, sometimes verbatim, including Telesur (RSP entry), whose RfC was opened and has a community consensus to deprecate. While I can understand that its use in topics unrelated to politics can be considered, the experience is that they should be questioned in all areas and that references with more reliability are almost always available; I believe the best alternative is the replacement of the source to a more trustworthy one, if you agree. The edit can be restored if you find this rationale satisfying. Best regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We have a policy on reliability of sources; it's found here and I don't see any prohibitions there related to Agencia Venezolana de Noticias. Once it's been officially listed there as such as a result of community WP:CONSENSUS, you will be in the position to argue for removal of my cite. Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I did think there was some wider Wikipedia consensus to be cautious with the government of Venezuela's statements, and AVN is a media body of the government. But, I agree with the general idea. Kingsif (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VENRS[edit]

Hey, I can see someone mentioned it above, but it has also drawn my attention recently that you may be - for want of a better term - abusing WP:VENRS. A few things here:

  1. It is advice, to help choose the best sources, it isn't Wikipedia:Perennial sources or a guideline (let alone policy). So, more than just wikilinking it is really needed to remove lots and lots of refs.
  2. Adding/removing sources on it was initially done by discussion at the WikiProject. I hadn't brought up some of your more recent unilateral edits to it because I largely agreed and believe most editors familiar with the subject would, but that doesn't mean we should get in the habit of adding sources without even a small consensus - if for no other reason than that someone disagreeing with the placement could very easily challenge the addition, and the credibility of the whole advice would go down.
  3. You don't seem to get that WP:SPS and Wikipedia:Primary sources apply; that is, for self-descriptions, even some 'blacklisted' sources can still be used. TeleSur may be the most-outlawed of all Venezuela sources, but for inline attributed Maduro administration statements, it is fine. These shouldn't be removed.

If you want to keep improving and renewing it, how about the Venezuela WikiProject holds a formal RfC every month or so, asking if sources on the list should be moved/removed/new ones added, and doing a sweep of Wikipedia to see if there are any instances of problem sourcing? Having more structure would at least cause less friction. Kingsif (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Hi! :) Thank you for your message.
One of the main reasons that has motivated me is both due weight in articles and the BLP policy. Commenting on the latter, given that most of its use it's related to current events, its coverage affects living people. Probably the closest example of this that I found was Richard Mardo's article, where Diosdado Cabello accused him of corruption but ever since (2013) no judicial process has taken place; regardless, the allegation was kept. My second point is mostly that if there's relevance on a statement, it probably will be available in a more reliable reference; if I recall correctly this was a convention recommended for COVID estimates.
Now, when I started the changes, I expected to be a lot less sources. The last thing that I wanted was for edits to be problematic, and given their scale it's understandable if they have. Furthermore, the reason that I'm providing above don't mean that I'm rejecting the other uses that they might have, and I believe opening a discussion on the issue is totally in order. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, in those cases, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE may be better policies to cite, and remove content. Hopefully we can get a discussion up soon. Kingsif (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:¿Y tú quién eres?[edit]

Information icon Hello, NoonIcarus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:¿Y tú quién eres?, 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) 17:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename categories[edit]

Please see my proposal to speedily rename subcategories of Category:Enforced disappearances by country e.g. Category:Forced disappearances in Argentina to Category:Enforced disappearances in Argentina to align with the parent category per C2C. Hugo999 (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ¿Y tú quién eres? has been accepted[edit]

¿Y tú quién eres?, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February with Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

DYK for María Fernanda Di Giacobbe[edit]

On 7 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article María Fernanda Di Giacobbe, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Venezuelan general strike of 2002–2003, all but one of Venezuelan chocolatier María Fernanda Di Giacobbe's ten businesses went bankrupt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/María Fernanda Di Giacobbe. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, María Fernanda Di Giacobbe), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coup d'état[edit]

I recently removed Tunisia from the template (unwittingly under an IP address due to me doing it under Private Browsing mode) and the editor (Panam2014) still kinda believes it is a self-coup: can you help explain the situation to Panam2014? Best, Minoa (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Minoa: Hi! Thanks for the message :) I have left a comment on the issue in the template's talk page; I hope it helps to explain better the removal, you can comment further if you wish. Please let me know if I can help with anything else. Happy editing! --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1963 Dominican coup d'état has been accepted[edit]

1963 Dominican coup d'état, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hello, I have seen that you added information about how the international community specifically in Latin American countries has reacted to the crisis between Russia and Ukraine, could you add the reaction of the governments of African countries to the crisis? At the moment, there is only the Kenyan response in the article. I thought it would be a good idea to add the response from South Africa, as both this country and Russia belong to the BRICS, the BBC published a news about how African countries are reacting to the crisis. It would also be appropriate to place in the Civil Society section, the reaction of Syrians, Al Jazeera published an article about it. I ask you to add them, because the subject is very polemic at the moment, I really do not know much about the subject and I am not an expert in political affairs, and I would like someone who has experience with articles on bilateral relations to add this information.--Seb { 💬 Talk + 📝 Edits } 01:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JSeb05: Hi! Although Africa usually isn't inside the scope of my edits, I can take a look for information and statements on the topic. If you wish, you can comment on the article's talk page, as well as related WikiProjects; I'm confident many other interested users will help out. Please let me know if I can help anyhow else. Happy editing! --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEPS removal?[edit]

I see you removed a source from Yulia Tolopa and cited WP:DEPS. That says "Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately." What was the process that you used to review this case separately, please? --GRuban (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without a response, though you are continuing to edit, I'm guessing you didn't actually review this, or any other of your many many removals separately. --GRuban (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban: Sorry for delaying in replying, I wanted to offer a good enough response. 112.international is a domain of 112 Ukraine, which has been repeatedly included in WP:RSPSS for deprecation, and in some cases even blacklisting. You can see the specific discussions in 2019 and 2020 (MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2020#State_sponsored_fake_news Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 315#112.ua) --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a review of this particular citation, as WP:DEPS calls for. If all that was required for "review" was: "Is it included in WP:RSPSS? Remove it." we might as well have a bot do it. In this particular case, as you would have known had you actually done the review, this is the source that is cited by all the others, as capturing the incident on television. I'm going to restore it based on that. I tremble to think you did this same amount of review on your other removals. --GRuban (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban: I think I misunderstood the question, gathering that you were referring to a general rationale instead of a specific one. Like you mentioned, the reason of the removal in the Yulia Tolopa is because there's already another source covering the information; it should also be further noted that the 112.international is not referencing precisely the tomato juice televised incident, but rather Liashko's response to it.
WP:DEPS continues to state that "Looking forward, however, the addition of new references from deprecated sources is extremely rare.". If there's already a reference that serves as the primary source or to represent the statement of a person, why should a deprecated source be kept? While we don't have bots that remove them, we do have edit filters and warnings against them. Best put as the page's briefing: "The community has decided to exclude certain highly questionable sources from articles, except in special cases." --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as I wrote, 112 Ukraine is the source cited by the reliable sources for this incident. Read them, they say so explicitly. [1] "...attacked Liashko in the building of the Ukrainian parliament and spilt tomato juice over him.... (112.ua 2016a)." [2] "... Об этом он заявил в эфире телеканала "112 Украина". (... Which he declared on the television channel "112 Ukraine".) As the RSN discussions confirmed, in general 112 Ukraine is a propaganda outlet. But, just as a stopped clock is right twice a day, in some cases a generally unreliable source is the best source. Yes, we should also cite the reliable sources, to confirm this is a stopped clock case, but it is valuable to also provide a direct link to the source they are themselves using. And this is the reason we don't have bots to remove every link listed in RSPSS. --GRuban (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: I see, that is understandable. I have added an inline tag for the footnote, but I can see that this situation can fall under the mentioned special cases. Best regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias. --GRuban (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March editathons[edit]

Women in Red Mar 2022, Vol 8, Issue 3, Nos 214, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Algunas regalos[edit]

I noticed you made a number of Women in Red articles, and thought I could help by illustrating some. (I do that occasionally.) Hope you like. Also, of course, because no gift comes without strings attached , could you please check that these are the right people? I think they are, but I only did a brief glance over the sources in each case and my Spanish isn't the best, and it would be embarrassing if instead of the article subject I ended up adding a picture of a different person with the same name or otherwise. (Is "en" the right way to say "person on television program"?) --GRuban (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: Omg!!! Damn, this is such a nice surprise, thank you!! I can confirm that all of the depicted images match the respective women, and as such I have included some of them in Wikidata. In any case, I still want to make a double and triple check, while I have the chance and shouldn't be too much of a trouble for me. Thank you once again! --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, shucks. Glad to hear it. Is "en" the correct Spanish, though? As in "File:Martha Luna en Mira TV 01.jpg"? I took one Spanish class a few decades ago... --GRuban (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban: Ah, sorry, I forgot to answer that one too. Yes! "en" would be the correct word to use in the title, as in "on [a telvision program]". I first wondered if you were referring to the occupation. Please let me know if you need help with any other translation! I'll try to do the rest of the check this week. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! You will be glad to know that per the instruction on your user page I am now religiously trying to preserve correct accents: [3] --GRuban (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: Many thanks! Spanish has many rules for diacritical accents, so I really appreciate the effort; even native speakers forget or use them incorrectly from time to time. They depend on which syllable is emphasized in the word: palabras agudas (emphasis in the last syllable), graves (in the second last one) and esdrújulas (in the antepenultimate syllable).

The general rules are that agudas words have an accent in the emphasized syllable if they end in a vowel, an "n" or an "s" and graves words if they don't, while esdrújulas words always have accents. Hoping it isn't too confusing, I can illustrate with some examples with last names: "Rondón" and "Cortés" are agudas (having an accent in the last syllable, as well as some words ending in "-ión"), and "González" and "Martínez" are graves (it's also common to have an accent in the second last syllable of words ending in "-ez"). As a fun fact, to drive the point further, "esdrújula" is a esdrújula word, having the accent in the third syllable always.

I naturally don't expect you to know all of the cases by heart. Sometimes the only way to know which type of word is which is be listening to its pronunciation, and naturally there will be some exceptions, and in the case of Hispanics migrants accents are even sometimes omitted. However, I hope they can offer more insight in case you have any doubt :) You can also consult this link to look a little further into the rules, if you wish so (Reglas de acentuación del castellano). As usual, don't be afraid to ask if you have any doubt regarding this. Happy editing! --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April Editathons from Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: El malquerido has been accepted[edit]

El malquerido, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hitro talk 19:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sr Pelo (April 9)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, NoonIcarus! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May Women in Red events[edit]

Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

ITN recognition for Juan Diego (actor)[edit]

On 30 April 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Juan Diego (actor), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a barnstar for you![edit]

Women in Red Translation Contest
NoonIcarus Thank you for your additions April 2022 WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve El Politigato[edit]

Hello, NoonIcarus,

Thank you for creating El Politigato.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

The references in this article address this comic artists creations. They do not address the biography of the person.

More sources are needed. Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability.

  1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
  2. Be completely independent of the article subject.
  3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
  4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

Given the mandatory requirements for Biography of Living Persons rendered above, the references in this article do not address the biography of this person. Kindly attend to the matters above.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022[edit]

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello NoonIcarus,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 816 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 858 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

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 and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

June events from Women in Red[edit]

Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

a barnstar for you![edit]

Women in Red Translation Contest contest
NoonIcarus Thank you for your additions May 2022 WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Euan Blair[edit]

I had my doubts, but thought the Birthday Honours list MBE did it - "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, if the issue here is notability, why not take it to AfD rather than tagging it as unreviewed? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: Hi. My concern is mostly that this was a previously deleted page, with little if any changes to the previous version that I'm aware of. I'm leaving it as unreviewed precisely because I'm not disputing its notability directly. We could notify the users involved in those discussions to address this. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why, BUT the one thing that has been added to the article establishes the person's notability - that he has now received an MBE - "a well-known and significant award or honor", which gets him straight over WP:BASIC. The page is reviewed - that's not a judgement on its suitability for AfD but its validity as a WP page. Hence I believe it should now be tagged as reviewed! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb: I agree with this. I have already pinged the users involved in previous nominations, although several of them are currently inactive or retired. I have marked the article as reviewed again as well: any ensuing process, including a possible AfD that other users wish to open, don't require the page to be unreviewed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2020 Barquisimeto shooting has been accepted[edit]

2020 Barquisimeto shooting, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

– robertsky (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Opposite Direction has been accepted[edit]

Opposite Direction, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

––FormalDude talk 10:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022[edit]

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello NoonIcarus,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 13902 articles, as of 14:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • 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 and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Notes
  1. ^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
  2. ^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in July 2022[edit]

Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on![edit]

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 July, 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 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

verifikado.com as a reference[edit]

Hi NoonIcarus. I'm very concerned that you restored verifikado.com as a reference in three articles [4][5][6], and without discussion. The lengthier edit summary you wrote said,The website released several fact checks in its time, it is only inactive currently. You can discuss further at WP:VENRS. I see no mention of verifikado.com at WP:VENRS.

I found some discussion about it, hidden in a collapsed section on the talk page archives for the blackouts article: Talk:2019_Venezuelan_blackouts/Archive_1#Neutrality_and_factual_accuracy

It was used in a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283#RfC:_Center_for_Economic_and_Policy_Research_(CEPR), and the related article talk page, but not used as a reference in the article. Similarly, it was used in discussions twice at Talk:Juan Guaidó, but again not used as a reference. Similarly at Talk:2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt. Are these all you bringing it up?

Note that I'm using autotranslate to assess verifikado.com, which makes it difficult. --Hipal (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verifikado is a fact checker. What I said in past discussions is that it's OK to add it as an adjunct/note to the original source it is fact-checking, as a further indication that source has been fact-checked, but it probably shouldn't be used stand-alone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For example, in this edit, verifikado is used an adjunct to the original source. (Haven't looked at others.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What information do we have that identifies it as a reliable source at all, let alone a fact-checker? --Hipal (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not being used to cite text. It's adding a note to otherwise cited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hipal: Hi! Although I have responded in the Jeffrey Sachs talk page, I have to join SandyGeorgia's comments and point out that no examples or reasons have been given for the removal of otherwise referenced content. I would be happy to address these concerns if you have any. Best regards! --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then it shouldn't be used. --Hipal (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)}[reply]
If no one can make a policy-based (WP:RS) case to use it, then we don't use it. I've searched all of English Wikipedia, and linked all discussions where it was mentioned. Nothing in them demonstrates it's reliable, let alone that there's consensus that it's so. If you want to change that, stop edit-warring and make a case. You may want to review WP:RSP and WP:RSN to get an idea what such discussions look like. --Hipal (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you're arguing that the source is not reliable only because it hasn't been discussed enough? This is particularly problematic for new or non-English sources, and this case is precisely the latter. The source's reliability remained undisputed for months and even years. As the proponent of the change and per WP:BRD, the onus is actually on you to demonstrate its unreliability. The source is not a blog, self-published or otherwise, so examples and arguments should be provided to explain why this is the case. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring. At this point, you've had plenty of time to review the relevant policies, yet appear to have not done so yet. Please do so now. --Hipal (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're failing to follow WP:BRD, as the proponent of the change, insisting in a different version from the article's stable version. I have explained several times why the reference is reliable, while an explanation on why its reliability should be disputed has not been provided.--NoonIcarus (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Explanations not based in policy are no basis to create consensus. You don't have consensus. You never had it. You're edit-warring. Your behavior could get you blocked at this point. --Hipal (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hipal: Per WP:RELIABILITY, I'll repeat it once again: Verifikado is a fact checker; it is not a blog, a self-published reference or has any indications that suggest that it is unreliable, and SandyGeorgia has explained it above as well. You're the proponent of the change. The onus is on you to get consensus, and when a dispute arises the version before the dispute must be maintained; you might be interested in reading WP:SILENCE. It should be mentioned that it is likewise quite difficult to answer when no explanations for the dispute have been provided in the first place. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and thanks for responding on the article talk pages.
No offense, but I'm concerned that you're not demonstrating any understanding of WP:RS or how we determine if a reference is reliable. I previously pointed you to RSP and RSN. As far as I can tell, you ignored them.
The onus is not on me, it's on you. You say it's reliable, but as far as you've demonstrated, that's all you've done. You may not be ignoring policy and procedure, but you've not demonstrated otherwise.
Your continued edit-warring is a serious problem.
Your personalizing of the situation is a serious problem. Please focus on content and policy per WP:FOC.
I see you have around 40 edits at WP:RSN, so I'm baffled by your choice to edit-war rather than make a policy-based argument that it's reliable. --Hipal (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Centralizing thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Verifikado.
If you believe I have not given explanations in the way that you prefer, maybe you have not been clear enough. It takes two to tango. Providing arguments on how the reference is not unreliable, as well as citing policy on how to reach a consensus, is clearly not ignoring policy and procedure; I cannot say the same for you, though, since so far I feel you're placing all of the weight of the discussion on me, despite my explanations.
I likewise would like to ask you to stop casting aspersions against me. You're the first that asked me not to waste your time, and this antagnosation only makes the discussion more difficult. You accuse me of edit-warring, yet refuse to follow WP:BRD, and the situation can easily be stopped if you stop reverting (since you're the proponent of the change).
Let us continue the discussion at the new thread. Hopefully we will both be able to answer the other's concerns. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NoonIcarus. I'd forgotten about this, confusing it with a similar dispute. Should we try RSN at this point? --Hipal (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipal: Hi, kind regards. Yeah, a RSN can offer more input into the issue. How should the question be framed? --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Would you like to draft something here? I'll start doing so:
(Identify references that appear to establish WP:REPUTABLE) --Hipal (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hipal: This looks alright, including the linked discussions. Many thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2022 –(UTC)
What (links?) should we copy from the VENRS discussion about their reputation? --Hipal (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think those referenced at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Venezuela/Reliable_and_unreliable_sources#Verifikado should be ok, namely: La Patilla ([12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]), El Nacional, Venezuela al Día, Periódico Cubano and Google Books, to include the most important. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hipal: Forgot to ping. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've updated it further. I'm afraid I'll have little or no time to do more until next week, and I won't have much time for the next few weeks. --Hipal (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hipal: No worries! I believe the following weeks will be similar for me. Please let me know if you need help in that regard. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leisha Medina moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Leisha Medina, is not suitable 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. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red August 2022[edit]

Women in Red August 2022, Vol 8, Issue 8, Nos 214, 217, 236, 237, 238, 239


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Spanish name: Marisol and María S.?[edit]

Hello again. I recently wrote this on another editor's talk page, about a person with a Spanish name, but realized I may be talking through my hat. Then I remembered I know a Wikipedia editor who cares a great deal about the fine points of Spanish names! Is my hypothesis that Marisol and María S. can be interchangeable correct? Or am I being silly? --GRuban (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: Hi! Good to hear from you! Thanks for asking, I hope I can be of help. While I find the explanation provided in the name's article plausible, for practical purposes María and Marisol are different names; in my experience, María and Marisol are not interchangeable, but I suppose it can also depend on the region. "De la Soledad" is a last name", while "Soledad" can be a last name as well as a first name ([25] and [26], Wikidata items respectively). Taking a look at the version of the article in other languages, her full name is María Soledad Soengas González, but the titles used for the pages is Marisol Soengas. It seems this was a convention first used in the Galician version, although there also seems to be a lack of discussion regarding the situation and I personally believe it is not totally accurate. Please let me know if you have further questions. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022[edit]

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello NoonIcarus,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • 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 and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP message[edit]

Hi NoonIcarus,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in September 2022[edit]

Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241


Online events:


Request for help:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Board of Trustees election[edit]

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Claiming Revolution" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Claiming Revolution and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Claiming Revolution until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page move?[edit]

Hey, I wanted to check in on the page move of Pedro Joaquín Chamorro Cardenal to Joaquín Chamorro. I’m concerned as I’ve never seen RS refer to him as just Joaquín Chamorro. I realize using all four names is a lot, but since his son is another wikinotable Pedro Joaquín Chamorro (maybe also his father?), this seemed like the best way to disambiguate. Am I overlooking some other consideration tho? Thanks muchly. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Innisfree987: Hi! I saw the single name in one of the last books that I read. I'm seeing that his father is Pedro Joaquín Chamorro Zelaya, although he doesn't have an article yet. However, browsing through sources online I quickly confirmed what you're saying. I made the move per WP:CONCISE, but I trust in you to use any other titles if there's risk of ambiguity. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah gotcha. It def would be convenient if that were the WP:COMMONNAME, but yeah unfortunately I think he’s so much better known as PJC that leaving off Pedro could confuse readers, and then his son Pedro Joaquín Chamorro Barrios has a page as well, so it seems like including the maternal last names is our best option... Unless you think this one should be known as the main Pedro Joaquín Chamorro and only Barrios (and potentially Zelaya) will have four names? Innisfree987 (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot that all of the above are descendants of a former President of Nicaragua, Pedro Joaquín Chamorro Alfaro. So, less clear who should be the main PJC! I suppose that leaves us using all four names for all, if it sounds right to you. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Innisfree987: Just as I saw the first message, I agreed that it was the best option. I don't know if any of the three use "Joaquín Chamorro" commonly, but I'm adding Distinguish templates to solve any confusion for the time being. Bibliographical sources might help in the future with this, but future discussion will definitely be needed if further changes are proposed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all fronts. Thanks for your help clarifying this (as best we can for the time being!) Innisfree987 (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Innisfree987: Any time! Thank you for letting me know :) --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive[edit]

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • 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 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red October 2022[edit]

Women in Red October 2022, Vol 8, Issue 10, Nos 214, 217, 242, 243, 244


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive is on![edit]

You are receiving this message because you signed up to participate in the drive, but have not yet reviewed any pages in October. We would love to see you over at the backlog drive! Buidhe 10:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022[edit]

Hello NoonIcarus,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Early end of the backlog drive[edit]

A few days ago, new page patrollers got the backlog to zero. Due to the unprecedented success of the backlog drive, it will be ending early—at the end of 24 October, or in approximately two hours.

Barnstars will be awarded as soon as the coords can tally the results. Streak awards will be allocated based on the first three weeks of the drive, with the last three days being counted as part of week three.

Great work everyone! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red November 2022[edit]

Women in Red November 2022, Vol 8, Issue 11, Nos 214, 217, 245, 246, 247


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

RFD Speedy deletion templates.[edit]

Please don’t put speedy deletion templates in RFD subpages as you did in this link [27] as it would be a simple waste of time for the administrators. Instead put the speedy deletion template on the page itself. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 21:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pizzaplayer219: I started the RFD by mistake. As I expressed in the tag and the comment, the reason to delete the redirect is to allow a rename of the 2014–2018 Nicaraguan protests article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 4#Protests against Daniel Ortega Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 21:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pizzaplayer219: Just seeing that you have additionally addded the tag in the redirect, as I originally intended. Many thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coup trawl request[edit]

I wonder if you could trawl the Template:Coup d'état template to see what counts as one and what doesn't? Afterwards, you could document the valid and invalid entries in the talk page to inform future editors. Side question: how does one prevent a pinned talk page post from being archived? --Minoa (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Minoa:, I am so sorry! I had completely forgotten to respond to this. Today I had the chance to take a quick look at the template's articles and I have removed some. I mostly checked for titles that didn't include the term "coup" nor widespread coverage of it in their content, as well as deleted redirects. However, it's possible that there are other cases of original research I'm missing. Happy Holidays and a New Year in advance!! --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Cortés Quero moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Manuel Cortés Quero, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. (?) 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.Onel5969 TT me 14:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, NoonIcarus. Thank you for your work on Irene Bosch. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, NoonIcarus. Thank you for your work on Iliana Ruzza. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstrucción moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Reconstrucción, is not suitable 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. Onel5969 TT me 13:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red in December 2022[edit]

WiR Women who died in 2022
WiR Women who died in 2022
Women in Red December 2022, Vol 8, Issue 12, Nos 214, 217, 248, 249, 250


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Remember to search slight spelling variations of your subject's name,
    like Katherine/Katharine or Elizabeth/Elisabeth, especially for historical subjects.

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Reconstrucción logo.png[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Reconstrucción logo.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) 18:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Leisha Medina (December 10)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Scope creep was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Currently, while it is quite easy to verify that Medina is a voice artist and it is not easy to determine if she is notable. I couldn't any independent WP:SECONDARY sources that prove she is notable. There is lots of "passing mentions" single sentences not in-depth coverage.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
scope_creepTalk 10:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, NoonIcarus! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! scope_creepTalk 10:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Armenia–Kosovo relations[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Armenia–Kosovo relations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia–Kosovo relations. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. czar 19:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red January 2023[edit]

Happy New Year from Women in Red | January 2023, Volume 9, Issue 1, Nos 250, 251, 252, 253, 254


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • De-orphan and incorporate an article into Wikipedia using the Find Link tool

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NoonIcarus/Archive_8&oldid=1178867396"