User talk:Snickers2686/Archive 13

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 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Snickers2686, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to John Gibbs (US government official) have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 21:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You've been warned about this before; this is your last warning. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 21:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, upon looking at Melanie L. Cradle and José A. Suarez, both of which copied from https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2020/07-2020/Governor-Lamont-Makes-Supreme-and-Appellate-Court-Appointments , which has no indication of being in the public domain, I'm blocking you and opening up a Copyright investigation. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 22:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Snickers2686 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Administrator says "this seems to be more of a case of not understanding what's in public domain and what isn't" and yet I'm still blocked? I always cite my sources and tag what is free domain and have made several judicial nominee articles with no violation issues. I couldn't even read up on the issue at hand before I was blocked. Am I really being blocked for not paraphrasing? Snickers2686 (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. To allow the reviewing administrator to assess your understanding, please respond to the following questions in your next unblock appeal, explaining in your own words:

What is copyright?
How is Wikipedia licenced?
Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?

Your answers will enable us to establish whether or not you should be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

July 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission, as you did at Melanie L. Cradle. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 22:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have revoked your autopatrol, NPP and pending changes reviewer rights. Your edits will need to be checked for copyvios by NPPers if you are unblocked. MER-C 08:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Jennifer E. Nashold for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jennifer E. Nashold is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer E. Nashold until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Rachel A. Graham for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rachel A. Graham is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel A. Graham until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Unblock #2

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Snickers2686 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Answering questions posed by admin Snickers2686 (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

OK. Pinging Yamla and Moneytrees. Do not err again, please. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

:

What is copyright? The legal right of the original creator to publish and writings or artistic stylings and the ability to authorize others to republish the work of the artist/author

How is Wikipedia licenced? Under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License edits are granted permission to copy, distribute and/or modify Wikipedia's text unless noted otherwise

Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia? Because it is content that is essentially not user created (or paraphrased) nor authorized by the original creator to be recreated

Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content? Depending on if it's a compatible license authorized for use within Wikipedia and/or falls under free use or public domain

How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future? By paraphrasing said said works in my own words and using proper citations. When coming across material that is assumed to be copyrighted, try a different a different source that is in the public domain or omit that use of copyrighted material altogether

Stop violating the spirit of Wikipedia by inappropriately censuring

I will provide source material. The content I am adding is accurate and relevant.

I am concerned that you are violating the spirit of this website by inappropriately censuring material.

Everything I wrote is sourced and properly documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:4:40E0:88F5:FA46:B3A8:1A61 (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Snickers2686, the IP editor has now registered as Engaged audience1 and started a discussion about the Sara L. Ellis article at BLP/N. Just letting you know. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

In the spirit of collaboration, please advise how you recommend we add the following material to the Wikipedia page.

I am open to reviewing your suggestions.

Ellis oversaw the frivolous Joshi v. Joshi case [5], in which a physician by the name of Jaydeep R Joshi filed a lawsuit against another physician by the name of Jay K Joshi ostensibly claiming the latter had imitated him, and used the Lanham Act as the basis of the lawsuit, proclaiming himself to be a "world famous physician", the "only real Jay Joshi", and an apparent subject matter expert in a wide ranging array of medical topics [5]. In a stunning departure from established legal precedent [6], Ellis allowed the case to survive initial motion for dismissal on the basis of a specious trademark claim despite the absence of any notable evidence and likely perjured statements by the plaintiff, Jaydeep R Joshi [5][7]. The case has since been dismissed with prejudice [8] and it is unclear whether Ellis recommended sanctions against the plaintiff, Jaydeep R Joshi, or the attorney representing the plaintiff [8].

References 5. “Joshi v. Joshi.” https://Www.abajournal.com/Images/main_images/JoshiSuit.pdf. 6. Motion to Dimiss for Failure to State a Claim. www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/motioniqbal_1.pdf. 7. Churney, Dan. “Judge Lets Suburban Doc Continue Lawsuit vs Doctor with Same Name Imprisoned over Opioid 'Pill Mill'.” Cook County Record, 5 Aug. 2019, cookcountyrecord.com/stories/512872512-judge-lets-suburban-doc-continue-lawsuit-vs-doctor-with-same-name-imprisoned-over-opioid-pill-mill. 8. Wood, Lauraann. “Ill. Doctors With Same Name Agree To End Trademark Fight.” Law360, 2020, www.law360.com/illinois/articles/1303127/ill-doctors-with-same-name-agree-to-end-trademark-fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engaged audience1 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Engaged audience1: If it's characterized as a "frivolous lawsuit" then why include it at all? Snickers2686 (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It made the cover of the Chicago Tribune and was nationally broadcasted. It is important for the initial decision not to dismiss relative to the final decision to dismiss with prejudice. Many people still look up the case to this day. The quality of the legal argument has no bearing on the public intrigue it establishes. The public intrigue makes the case note worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engaged audience1 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Engaged audience1: So if there are national sources, then those need to be included. I only see one source from Cook County. And again, how it was written in the addition to the article was "Ellis oversaw the frivolous Joshi v. Joshi case" so again, if frivolous, then why include it? Snickers2686 (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Engaged audience1 may be unaware of the sheer volume of frivolous cases dealt with by the courts. I interned with a U.S. district judge one summer during law school, and they had me draft the responses to these, of which there were a handful in that time. A judge serving for any appreciable period of time will dispose of dozens, perhaps scores of these over the course of their judgeship. Therefore, any given instance of such a case is purely routine, and not within our coverage. Incidentally, the number of frivolous cases is dwarfed by the number of legitimate cases, which are more important matters, but also routine. BD2412 T 18:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Snickers2686 @Eggishorn

Points taken. I better understand the standards of content generation. I will not post anything based upon the feedback provided. Engaged audience1 (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Kate Comerford Todd

I created the article for Kate Comerford Todd, and now see that someone has suggested it be deleted. Do you think it merits inclusion on Wikipedia? – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 02:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@JocularJellyfish: I'm not sure if there have been other articles created for Deputy Counsels beyond Patrick F. Philbin, if there are, I'm not sure who they are. I think as BD2412 said in the discussion just because she's mentioned as a nominee doesn't mean automatic nobility, however, if you can expand the article to showcase why/how she's notable, then I'm sure it could stay. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

KidAd Disruptive Editing

Hey, I've editing pages and have run in to KidAd, who seems to think that if pages aren't to his style, they're wrong. I've noticed you had the same issue with him. I'm new here and it shows that you've been doing this for a while, what recourse can I take since KidAd has threaten to block me from editing. Alexr9873 (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Running to an uninvolved user is not a productive way of handling this dispute. It also displays a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. You have been given multiple warnings and chances to change your disruptive behavior and have refused each of them. KidAd talk 18:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Bruh my guy, I'm new so I'm asking for help, so you take that as "BATTLEGROUND" mentality. Cmon dude, just because the style isn't to your liking that means it's wrong? I don't understand how its disruptive, I've attempted to reach out and start a dialogue and you've only responded with threats. Alexr9873 (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Commission date

I knew she received it, which is why I edited it...but you undid it. lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.16.125 (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@199.107.16.125: I undid it at the time because there was no notice or press release or anything to signify that she received her commission. Editors typically use the Federal Judicial Center for verification and at the time of your edit, they had not indicated that Jarbou had received her commission. Snickers2686 (talk)

October 2020

Your recent editing history at Diana Shaw shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. KidAd talk 20:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@KidAd: So then why revert my initial edit without discussing it first? Snickers2686 (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Instead of edit-warring, discuss your proposed changes to the formatting of the infobox on the article's talk page. I suggest that you self-revert, or I will be forced to take this to WP:AN/3. You have already violated WP:3RR. KidAd talk 20:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@KidAd: I've already told you why, because it doesn't conform to like-minded infoboxes Hardly any infobox uses the status parameter to indicate an "acting" position. Snickers2686 (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

"Telling me why" is not enough. We are talking about Diana Shaw, so other pages do not matter. As far as I know, the only reason the infobox formatting of several former officeholders has changed is that you changed it...today. As I said before, if you do not self-revert, I will take this to WP:AN/3. KidAd talk 20:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Snickers2686, if you're opposed to using the "Status" field for some reason, can we compromise by converting (Acting) to just Acting? Either format makes the infobox look crowded, but the parentheses add nothing but a visual distraction. KidAd talk 21:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@KidAd: I've got a question out to the Teahouse to see if they can provide guidance on formatting. I'm not opposed to styling (Acting) when it comes to the notation of a successor. I think it's just a stylistic choice as to whether to include the parenthesis in the infobox header or not. In regards to styling the main office with (Acting) as a subtext after a break (i.e. Secretary of X
(Acting) or prior to the office (i.e. Acting Secretary of..) either way is fine, I suppose, it can be done prior to the office, if need be but that just means a lot of reformatting on like-minded infoboxes beyond just the U.S. Cabinet or diplomats. To me, uniformity is key, it just looks better. Snickers2686 (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll be curious to hear what the Teahouse has to say. Is it alright to make the change to just Acting? I think that is a decent compromise until we hear additional opinions. KidAd talk 21:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@KidAd: That's fine with me Snickers2686 (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Snickers2686! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Using the "status" parameter in an infobox, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Justice Inting's Appointment

See this link http://jbc.judiciary.gov.ph/index.php/announcements/judicial-vacancies which points that he was appointed to the SC on 22 February 2020 KILLERXR (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@KILLERXR: Nowhere in this source does it say ANYWHERE that he was appointed on February 22. His own Court Biography says: "On May 29, 2019, he was appointed as the 183rd Associate Justice of the Supreme Court." Snickers2686 (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Kindy open the link of vacancy and you'll see what I mean KILLERXR (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@KILLERXR: I see what it says but I think that's a mistake. There are MULTIPLE sources that don't mention his appointment until May of 2019.

When he was nominated versus when he was sworn in are two different things. Snickers2686 (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess so it was a mistake made by the Judicial and Bar Council, and thanks for every sources you gave Snickers 2686 KILLERXR (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Your recent protection request

Hello, Snickers! You recently asked for semi-protection for the article Supreme Court of the United States. I move-protected it but held off on semi-protection for the time being. But checking this morning I see that there has been a spurt of vandalism to the article, so I have now given the article a month’s semi-protection as well. Just FYI. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Thank you. I appreciate it. There was a bunch of back and forth going on since ACB's confirmation. I'm sure it'll calm down in a week or two. Snickers2686 (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

And thank you, for all the outstanding work you do on our articles re courts and judges. (I took a peek at your user page.) -- MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Alex Kozinski

Categories are meant to be defining. We dont categorise people as from places they left as children unless that place is clearly significant for them. Rathfelder (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: So a place where a person was born isn't significant? I find that severely flawed. Snickers2686 (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Not if they leave as a child and never go back. Rathfelder (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: What's the controlling precedent or rule? Snickers2686 (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

That categories should be defining. Wikipedia:DEFINING Rathfelder (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Snickers2686! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Defining and birth place, which has precedent?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Snickers2686! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Spelling correction (and move) of a category, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Banner shell

Hi there. Please check the syntax for this template because I have had to fix quite a few of your recent edits (example). Thanks! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@MSGJ: What's wrong with the way it was formatted? Snickers2686 (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The banner shell template wasn't working. Check the version of the page before my fix. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You're still doing this. Please use the template properly, thank you! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@MSGJ: So when did the formatting change then if it's wrong? Because I've used this same format for countless other creations of talk articles and there was never an issue, now suddenly there is... Snickers2686 (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I've been fixing up your templates for several weeks now! The close braces }} are in the wrong place. Check the diff I posted above ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@MSGJ: You've fixed a handful out of several hundred, I hardly call that an issue. Snickers2686 (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Snickers2686,

Year in review

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

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

Reviewer of the Year

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

NPP Technical Achievement Award

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

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

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

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)