User talk:Snickers2686/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
J.D. --> Juris Doctor?
I was under the impression that we fairly uniformly use the abbreviation here. In fact, I have often changed links to that effect. Am I wrong about that? bd2412 T 20:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- @BD2412: No, you're not wrong. To me it make sense to spell out the name of a degree while reading it in the body of the article versus using abbreviations in an infobox. I just think it looks cleaner that way, but that may just be a personal preference. Snickers2686 (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The file File:Judge Beth Freeman.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Taking your user page at face value . . .
I thought I would congratulate you on reaching the age of 33. Happy birthday! It's been a pleasure editing with you over the last several years. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- @LacrimosaDiesIlla: Thank you very much! It's been pleasure editing with you as well.
Your Question Regarding Trump Administration Personnel Category
In response to your recent question on my UserTalk page, Category:Trump administration personnel should include any current or former Executive Branch appointees of President Donald Trump, and any current or former Cabinet or Cabinet-level appointees of President Trump should be included in Category:Trump administration cabinet members, which is a subcategory of the "personnel" category. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.--TommyBoy (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
New Article
Hey Snickers, I created a page for Earle D. Litzenberger - Ambassador to Azerbaijan. It’s waiting for review and I’m noticing an 8 week backlog. Mind please to review it? Thanks Shemtov613 (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Shemtov613: Did you move the article to the main space? I don't see any article by that name pending review. Snickers2686 (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Snickers2686: Correct, someone moved it. It’s now Draft:Earle D. Litzenberger. Shemtov613 (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Shemtov613: Okay. I can only review articles that are in the main space. If your article was an AfC submission, that itself has it's own review criteria that I'm not a part of. Sorry. Snickers2686 (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Snickers2686: No problem. Thanks anyways Shemtov613 (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, @Snickers2686: Some time ago you moved the page that I create, Maimun Zubair, to Draft:Maimun Zubair. I think now the article has enough references, and until now I am still perfecting the rest. I hope you can review the Draft:Maimun Zubair page and move it back to its original page at Maimun Zubair. Previously, I thank you. :) Raudalkhudri (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Raudalkhudri: Go ahead and keep working on the draft, it looks good so far. There are still many blank sections, i.e. Career, Activities, Notable Works and Death, so until those are updated with reliable sources and content, I think it should stay in the draft format for now. Good work though! Snickers2686 (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello Snickers2686,
- Backlog
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
- Coordinator
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
- This month's refresher course
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
- Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
- Paid editing
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
- Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
- Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
- Not English
- A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
- Tools
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Steven Menashi
Here is your source (the hearing that I actually did watch): https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/09/11/2019/nominations
That you could have dug up to improve Wikipedia if you were in good faith, since you seem to be familiar with the judicial process, instead of deleting my edit as if I were some anon vandal.
Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.71.137.194 (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- @37.71.137.194: I know, I watched the hearing. What relevance does it have on him as a nominee? Snickers2686 (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Snickers2686: Woah, hold on a second. That means you used the lack of citation as an excuse to remove my edit, since you knew this information was true if you indeed watched the hearing. That's some really low stuff dude. Do you have something against the Jewish people? As for your question, it is a living person bio, and it is his bio. Nearly all bios include information about origins, and the "relevancy" of origins is only used to determine if that info should be in the lead of the article or not. Just because I choose not to have an account and decorate it with weird boxes doesn't mean I don't know how Wikipedia works. Please do not vandalize Wikipedia by removing sourced info.
@37.71.137.194: Really? You're gonna sit there and call it vandalism? I'm not the one hiding under an anonymous account. Do you expect people to watch all two hours of the video just to find out he's Jewish? Again, what relevance does it have? Snickers2686 (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Snickers2686: I'm not hiding buddy, I have no time to put up silly little boxes that's all. You are the one who was sneaky like "yeah but there is no citation so I'm going to delete it" even though you knew the info to be true. It is as relevant as any origins info is in any bio. If you are an anti-Semite and do not like Jewish people, that doesn't give you the right to vandalize Wikipedia and remove sourced info. As for the video, hey buddy you are grasping at the straws here - there are references on Wikipedia with only the name of the book and the page number, so take it easy...
@37.71.137.194: So then find a written source with the same information. Snickers2686 (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Snickers2686: Stop making up weird rules and please do remove "This user assumes good faith" box from your profile. It is a video of him personally stating this, and if you watched the hearing you know this information to be true. So what is your problem?? Need some attention?
@37.71.137.194: If you wanna have an actual grownup conversation instead of hurling insults, then I'll talk with you. I've got administrators looking into your actions already so we'll see what they say. Have a good one! Snickers2686 (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Snickers2686: Yeah, said the guy who thinks a video of the bio subject stating this information personally would be lower source than a second-hand news article. You are the one acting in bad faith, so remove this sourced information, and I will report you for anti-Semitic vandalism. It's simple.
Archbishops
Hi there, thanks for updating the 21st-century categories. But I need to point out that Category:21st-century Roman Catholic archbishops is a subcategory of Category:21st-century Roman Catholic bishops, and so putting an article in the former (diffusing) will suffice, and it is redundant to also place him in the latter category. Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Women government ministers
Hallo, one of your edits at 03:18 today was to Johanna Dohnal on my watch list, where you removed Category:Government ministers of Austria using Hotcat, presumably because she was in Category:Women government ministers of Austria. But this is a "non-diffusing" subcategory, so the parent category should not be removed. I see from your contribution list that you made a lot of similar mistaken edits around the same time. Please go back and revert them. Thanks. PamD 05:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC) (typo corrected 16:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC))
- @PamD: Show me the Wikipedia policy where this is the case. Snickers2686 (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- The text at Category:Women government ministers of Austria says it is a non-diffusing category, and the link there leads to WP:DUPCAT - a guideline rather than a policy, but it says that "[non-diffusing categories] provide an exception to the general rule that pages are not placed in both a category and its subcategory: there is no need to take pages out of the parent category purely because of their membership of a non-diffusing subcategory". PamD 16:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
|
Hi Snickers2686! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Minor Christopher Cooper change perhaps you could review
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_R._Cooper#Would_like_to_add_detail_about_his_wife — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siihb (talk • contribs) 23:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello Snickers2686,
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
- Getting the queue to 0
There are now 816 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.
- Coordinator
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
- This month's refresher course
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
- Tools
- It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
- It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
- Reviewer Feedback
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
- Second set of eyes
- Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
- Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
- Arbitration Committee
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
- Community Wish list
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 |
In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Linking to inactive links
The links automatically are active after about an hour so there is no need to wait to add it in then. 148.77.10.25 (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@148.77.10.25: There's no need to rush to add it until it's active either. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- there's no need to wait as it won't change and you don't have to go back check if it's active and then add it in 148.77.10.25 (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Bio talkpages
There's no need to change |blp=yes to "no" when a subject dies. Just remove it, as the {{BLP}} formatting serves no purpose with the death, only the {{WikiProject Biography}} |living=yes should change. Thanks. — Wyliepedia @ 00:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clark Waddoups, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American Samoan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter December 2019
- Reviewer of the Year
This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.
Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.
Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.
| Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rosguill (talk) | 47,395 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 2 | Onel5969 (talk) | 41,883 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 3 | JTtheOG (talk) | 11,493 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 4 | Arthistorian1977 (talk) | 5,562 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 5 | DannyS712 (talk) | 4,866 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 6 | CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) | 3,995 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 3,812 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 8 | Boleyn (talk) | 3,655 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 9 | Ymblanter (talk) | 3,553 | Patrol Page Curation |
| 10 | Cwmhiraeth (talk) | 3,522 | Patrol Page Curation |
(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)
- Redirect autopatrol
A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.
- Source Guide Discussion
Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
- This month's refresher course
While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Former judges for Template:U.S. Tax Court judges?
What would your thoughts be on adding a section for all of the former judges/board members? BD2412 T 02:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- @BD2412: I'm not opposed to it but there's a good number of members/judges of the Tax Court that don't have an article. Snickers2686 (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- They will, eventually. I have drafts underway for all of the red links. BD2412 T 02:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)