User talk:Robert McClenon
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 7 sections are present. |
| Other archives |
|---|
| Problem Archive |
| Famekeeper Archive |
| FuelWagon Archive |
| Jack User Archive |
| John Carter Archive |
| PhiladelphiaInjustice Archive |
| 78 Archive |
| DIRECTIVEA113 Archive |
 | If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:President of Venezuela on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Question for an experienced wikipedian[edit]
Hello, @Robert McClenon and @Lightoil, I have called on your help on the following User talk page: User talk:David O. Johnson#Revision of my edit on 2024/02/16. Recently, Mr. Johnson and I were having a discussion as to wether a link to a future article should be kept, or if it shoud only be added once established. Thank you for your help, Blocktomo (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Request for review[edit]
Trying to be bold I just updated an essay WP:TLDR by adding a new section Some quick tips. Since you have a long experience at WP:DRN in handling users writing long responses, you can help reviewing the tips added by me besides may be you too can add some tips.
Thanks Bookku (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ajit Krishnan on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Dune: Part Two on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Conflict management case[edit]
Fram is not an administrator. Regards! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- User:Usedtobecool - I will revise my statement when it isn't 3 am local time. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Usedtobecool got here before me. Perhaps review the decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram? It's dangerous to assume that there must have been valid reasons behind a punishment; mistakes are sometimes made. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Conflict of interest management: Case opened[edit]
Hello Robert McClenon,
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
FYI, I moved this to Eurychorda and merged in the lede, taxobox, and history. Monotypic genus article (genus with only one species) belong at the genus name, if possible. Since the genus article existed already, the draft should have been denied as a duplicate effort, with the author directed to make their changes to the genus article. No big deal, just thought to let you know. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- UtherSRG - Okay. Does this also apply to the genus for a monotypic family? I am aware that monotypic genera are more common than monotyic higher-level taxa. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- For higher level taxa, we reposition at the lowest taxa in the monotypy. WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA explains it all. Species move up to genus, everything else moves down, but no lower than genus. A good example is Batoteuthis... a single genus in a family, and a single species in that genus; the family moves down to the genus, and the species up to the genus at the same time, ending up with all three taxa being described in the genus article. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- UtherSRG - Okay. Does this also apply to the genus for a monotypic family? I am aware that monotypic genera are more common than monotyic higher-level taxa. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Open file format on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Paul Atreides on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
DRN for Sweet Baby Inc[edit]
Hey,
I just saw that you're offering to moderate the DRN for Sweet Baby Inc. Two points, firstly I'm not sure DRN rule A is appropriate here, as the the article is in the WP:GENSEX contentious topic area. WP:RULED or WP:RULEE seem like they'd be more appropriate. Secondly, there are significantly more than the four listed editors at DRN currently engaging on the article's talk page, where I would describe the current situation as two against many. Those discussions are still on-going and don't appear to be at any sort of impasse where DRN is indicated.
Just thought you should be aware of this prior to opening a DR discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- User:Sideswipe9th - Thank you for calling this to my attention. I have revised my opening statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Are you sure it is best to use WP:PROD for these? If successful, it will result in WP:SOFTDELETE. Do we want a stronger result?
Also pinging User:Scope creep who endorsed the PROD. ~Kvng (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- User:Kvng - I will be satisfied with a Soft Delete as the right result. The alternative would of course be to send the article to AFD, and decide whether the subject is biographically notable. I have no opinion on her notability. She may be notable. A soft delete permits a neutral editor to request undeletion. If a neutral editor requests undeletion, they may leave the biography unchanged or improve it. In either case, it can then be taken to AFD on the merits. To be honest, I PROD'd it because I didn't feel like doing a source analysis (and I wasn't prepared to argue lack of notability unless I did a source analysis), and knew that I might be doing a source analysis at a later day. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Kvng: @Robert McClenon: I'm pretty detached from it as well. If it comes up again, it will appear in the watchlist. I would have G4 since it was declined at AFC review, which is the legitimate way of deleting it, but ok with prod. If it comes back again, it go to Afd and it will be salted. scope_creepTalk 18:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- User:scope_creep - It is not my understanding that a decline at AFD enables a G4. It is my understanding that G4 is only available when a page has been deleted after a deletion discussion in the address space that the nominated page is in. It is my understanding that a neutral editor may move a declined draft from draft space into article space to contest a decline, and then it will be subject to AFD as a consensus process, so that there is a consensus process for reviewing the unilateral action of the decline. If there has been a change to the G4 criteria so that a declined draft that is sent to article space can be tagged for G4, I would like to know (and might disagree). In this case, the reason why the author did not have the right to contest the decline by moving it to article space is that they are a paid editor. I think that in a while I will copy this discussion to the AFC talk page for clarification. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not at Afd. If its declined in Afc and then moved to mainspace and its junk, it can be G4'd. I think that is the process as far as I know. I didn't know you could G4 until a few days ago, when I saw it in a conversation. I've not used it as yet. scope_creepTalk 18:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- User:scope_creep - It is not my understanding that a decline at AFD enables a G4. It is my understanding that G4 is only available when a page has been deleted after a deletion discussion in the address space that the nominated page is in. It is my understanding that a neutral editor may move a declined draft from draft space into article space to contest a decline, and then it will be subject to AFD as a consensus process, so that there is a consensus process for reviewing the unilateral action of the decline. If there has been a change to the G4 criteria so that a declined draft that is sent to article space can be tagged for G4, I would like to know (and might disagree). In this case, the reason why the author did not have the right to contest the decline by moving it to article space is that they are a paid editor. I think that in a while I will copy this discussion to the AFC talk page for clarification. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Kvng: @Robert McClenon: I'm pretty detached from it as well. If it comes up again, it will appear in the watchlist. I would have G4 since it was declined at AFC review, which is the legitimate way of deleting it, but ok with prod. If it comes back again, it go to Afd and it will be salted. scope_creepTalk 18:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- User:Kvng - I will be satisfied with a Soft Delete as the right result. The alternative would of course be to send the article to AFD, and decide whether the subject is biographically notable. I have no opinion on her notability. She may be notable. A soft delete permits a neutral editor to request undeletion. If a neutral editor requests undeletion, they may leave the biography unchanged or improve it. In either case, it can then be taken to AFD on the merits. To be honest, I PROD'd it because I didn't feel like doing a source analysis (and I wasn't prepared to argue lack of notability unless I did a source analysis), and knew that I might be doing a source analysis at a later day. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I personally think WP:AFD is the right venue for this. Its not a simple, obvious, uncontroversial case that PROD was designed to handle. If you're not up for WP:BEFORE leave it for someone else. But I respect the experience of the editors here so I'm not going to be WP:POINTY about it. ~Kvng (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am copying this discussion to the speedy deletion talk page to ask for verification about G4. I mostly agree with User:Kvng that it was not an uncontroversial case, and will say that I was ignoring the rule that PROD is for uncontroversial cases, because what wasn't controversial is that it was paid editing and I didn't want a paid article being indexed in article space. I thought that, under the circumstances, I should do something, and what I could quickly was PROD. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Looking for volunteer guidance on trap-neuter-return Wikipedia page[edit]
I'm not an experienced editor, but I'm a subject matter expert in trap-neuter-return (TNR). The edit history is not something I can easily understand, but based on the wayback machine, the TNR page took a turn starting in mid 2021, with the addition of the word "controversial" in the first sentence. Over the last three years the page has been injected with anti-TNR talking points until now it serves largely to discredit TNR. After some dialogue in the Talk, an editor who was mediating the topic, suggested that the next course of action should be the dispute resolution noticeboard. The reason I'm unsure is because one specific editor has been flagged for bias on that page, and the TNR subsection of Feral Cats and has heavily edited 'Cats Predation of Wildlife' all in the same vein. My question is: can the page be moved to consensus when one of the editors insists on maintaining bias they introduced? As I looked at the question prompts to introduce a new topic for dispute resolution, the second question asks if the dispute is about content or an editors behavior. Was hoping to get a neutral third party to take a look and let me know what the best course of action is. Nylnoj (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- User:Nylnoj - I will take a look within 24 hours. What article are the questions about? Is it Trap-Neuter-Return? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Correct, Trap-Neuter-Return is the current focus. Nylnoj (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- User:Nylnoj - I am not entirely sure what the question is. As User:TCMemoire says, your choices at this point are multiple RFCs, or DRN. Third Opinion is not an option, because you have already had a very useful Third Opinion input from User:TCMemoire. If you choose DRN, and that will be a good choice, if I mediate the dispute, I will ask questions about what each editor wants to change or to leave the same. That is likely to wind up formalizing the content of multiple RFCs, and will be better than just running in to RFC without prior discussion. Is there a question, or are you only asking whether I agree that DRN is likely to be a useful step? If that is the question, then the answer is yes.
- In the discussion on the article talk page, you mention the possibility of rolling the article back to 2021. My experience is that attempts to roll articles back to versions that are several months or a few years old almost always result in more heat than light. I don't recommend going down that alley. If that alley has rats, any community cats can handle them better than you can. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll submit to the Dispute Resolution noticeboard. The other course of action would be to make a complaint about an editor to the Administrator's noticeboard. Since I'm new here, I'll follow the advice of those who know more and we'll see how this goes! Thanks for weighing in. Nylnoj (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Correct, Trap-Neuter-Return is the current focus. Nylnoj (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- User:Nylnoj - I will take a look within 24 hours. What article are the questions about? Is it Trap-Neuter-Return? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I opened a Dispute Resolution ticket and now the other editor is saying that they may choose not to participate. On my own talk page hey have accused me of personal attacks and listed several true statements I said along with some that are also true but taken a bit out of context. If the other editor does not participate, what are my options? [[1]]
Nylnoj (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- (Sorry to mess up the formatting - for some reason the reply button was not displaying a moment ago) Nylnoj (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
David Wicht Draft Page[edit]
Hi Robert. I hope you are well. Thanks for helping me with reviewing my page. I have made some more edits. I do think that David would fit in the WP PRODUCER or WP FILMMAKER category but am not sure how to add this to the page to make the page accepted.
Do you know how to do this?
I have note yet re-submitted my changes as there are still some sources I would like to add and some more editing I would like to do.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Kind Regards
Karin Karinvanderlaag (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:2024 United States presidential election on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Dispute resolution noticeboard: Russo-Ukrainian War[edit]
Hello, I have just noticed that Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 242#Russo-Ukrainian War was archived and I think everyone in it agreed that RFC is the only possible solution to solve this content dispute. Will you start RFC (Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/RFC on Listing of Belarus)? Disagreements between users regarding this issue continues at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#Belligerents: supported by Belarus, so please start RFC by also informing as many as possible likely interested users about it to reach a strong WP:CONS. -- Pofka (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- User:Pofka - I have unarchived the discussion, and have stated that if there are no further comments on the RFC, I will activate it in 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Editor experience invitation[edit]
Hi Robert McClenon :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
On history merging[edit]
FYI it's easier for me if you don't decline the draft before requesting it be history merged into a mainspace article - if the most recent edit to the draft is older than the first edit to the mainspace article then the draft will be autoconverted to a redirect when I do the merge, whereas if the most recent edit is more recent than the first edit to the article (such as a decline edit) then it becomes orphaned on the draft and either confusingly sits there or has to be manually deleted, and I additionally have to manually redirect it. Thanks. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- User:Pppery - Thank you for the information, and thank you for doing history merges. Autoconverting the draft to a redirect is desirable. I manually redirect a lot of drafts to the articles, and any way of simplifying that is useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Redirects[edit]
Hi. I don't at all mean to question your judgment, but I can't help wondering in what circumstances people think that the one from Nibble (unit) to Nibble might ever be used or needed? Deb (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Such redirects often do get a small number of hits, which come from users (e.g. readers who have become accustomed to the disambiguation patterns in Wikipedia article names) having a misconception that a particular article is under a disambiguated title when it is not and inputing that exact name in the search, in the hope that they will get taken straight to that article, and not some other article or a disambiguation page. Some are probably truly useless, but it can be safely assumed that they are not wholly worthless as a class, so an "assumption of plausibility" can be said to apply. Nibble is a word that has multiple meanings, and the other meanings don't correspond to potential encylopedic topics, but it doesn't especially matter, as people can still mistakenly think that the article has a disambiguated name. —Alalch E. 13:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'd really like to know what Robert thinks. Deb (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- User:Deb - Occasionally, if I want to look for an article on a subject, and think that it has been disambiguated, I may guess at what the disambiguator is, rather than going first to the disambiguation page, so I think that someone else might do the same thing. I wouldn't guess that Nibble is a combination of a primary page and a disambiguation page, which it is. More generally, my thinking is that any seemingly unlikely search combination will be used at some point. I think that is a case of the law of extremely large numbers. So my thinking is that if a possible search term seems unlikely, someone will try it at some time. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'd really like to know what Robert thinks. Deb (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Moneyview[edit]
In looking at history, Draft:Moneyview was created before Moneyview, and the article copied content from the draft without attribution. At Teahouse, the creator or Moneyview has been asked to explain the situation. David notMD (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sir Charles Trevelyan, 1st Baronet on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment[edit]
Your feedback is requested at User talk:Tinkaer1991 on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Request for Review[edit]
For a while i've been working on Draft:Tropical Storm Bret (2023), and it has repeatedly been declined by the same person, Drdpw. His reasoning is it is not notable (knocked 50% of power out of a country and affected many more), it is too small (over 17K bytes) and it doesn't have enough references, even though it has 39.
I was wondering if you could look over it and maybe provide a more neutral view.
Shmego (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic[edit]
I feel its time WP designates Sri Lanka as a contentious topic. Cossde (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Rippling[edit]
Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rippling".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 16:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024[edit]
Hello Robert McClenon,
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
- You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
- Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
[edit]
Hi,
Considering that you began an RfC on the use of Tifinagh on the Algeria article, there's been quite a debate on whether or not Tifinagh should be removed from Morocco-related articles, which led to an RfC. Since you seem like a neutral third-party, it would be nice to have some feedback.
Thank you! NAADAAN (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Climate change DRN[edit]
So, the settings used by the archival bot on the DRN page are clearly overzealous, as it had somehow already archived our ongoing DRN! Can you please do something about that? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- User:InformationToKnowledge - I have unarchived it back to DRN. I will change the bot parameter from 48 hours to 72 hours, but the real problem is that the Do Not Archive Until date is being initialized to two weeks after start rather than three weeks after start, and I have requested technical advice on what to do about that. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Notably, the bot archive itself remains unchanged - does that mean you would be effectively forced to manually paste the discussion into the same archive once it actually is closed, to prevent the bot from archiving it twice? That, and I hope @Bogazicili saw that the discussion is back in its rightful place, so that we can move on to the next step ASAP. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll add my revised suggestion next week. Bogazicili (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I did not remove the case from the archive, so when the case is finished, it will be archived again by the bot. I am not concerned about the double archival. This has occasionally happened before. It should happen less often now that I have changed one of the bot parameters, so that it only archives after 72 hours of silence. There is still something of a mystery about the Do Not Archive Until date. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll add my revised suggestion next week. Bogazicili (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Notably, the bot archive itself remains unchanged - does that mean you would be effectively forced to manually paste the discussion into the same archive once it actually is closed, to prevent the bot from archiving it twice? That, and I hope @Bogazicili saw that the discussion is back in its rightful place, so that we can move on to the next step ASAP. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Venezuelan politics opened[edit]
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
A goat for you![edit]
You've rightfully heard thanks to this end before, but the fact remains you're just about the closest individual Wikipedia has to a guardian angel—in a concrete sense and not a supernatural one, mind—with how you try diligently to prevent humans from hurting themselves and others through quiet patience. Very concretely, I am glad there are people like you around to help keep the site together, and while I have some patience sometimes, I know for certain that I don't have what you have. I do hope you're taking care of yourself, though. Thanks for the hard work.
Remsense诉 21:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for your comment on Draft:Ronnie Archer-Morgan. I know it's not actually about the article itself, but if you had a moment to read it at the time, is there anything you thought could improve it or make it more likely to pass AfC? If so, please may you tell me, or just edit it yourself.
Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Class of Ronnie Archer-Morgan[edit]
Hi there, You recently rated Ronnie Archer-Morgan as C-Class, but I thought it looked more like a B-Class article. However, I am probably biased seeing as I wrote it. Which of the B-Class criteria does it fail to meet, so I can work on improving it? Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
The ARCA you filed has been closed[edit]
Hi Robert, the ARCA you filed has been closed. firefly ( t · c ) 16:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
You've got mail![edit]
Message added 01:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 01:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive[edit]
| New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)