Make+Think+Code and the Pacific Northwest College of Art are hosting a Wikipedia editathon at the Shipley Collins Mediatheque (511 NW Broadway) on Saturday, January 19 from 10am to 2:30pm. The purpose of the event is to make Wikipedia a more vibrant, representative, inclusive and diverse resource. Please visit Wikipedia:Meetup/MakeThinkCode/TheVisibilityProject for more information. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

If you like you are welcome to rescind it, although in fairness i'm betting when the account holder logs in he will see he is not blocked and remove it accordingly. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! He's still pretty new so I could see him finding it confusing. I therefore went ahead and removed it. VQuakr (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

To commemorate Black History Month, Oregon State University, Wikimedia Nigeria, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, and AfroCROWD are hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon at the Oregon State University Valley Library on Friday, February 8 from 2–5pm. The purpose of the event is to reduce Wikipedia's diversity gap by creating and improving articles about African American culture and history, as well as notable people of African descent and the African diaspora in general. Please visit here for more information. Remote participation is welcome! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --67.129.187.130 (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The ANI thread has already been deleted as vandalism, and I have reported the IP for personal attacks after a final warning. Meters (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) is hosting a Wikipedia edit-a-thon in the Shipley Collins Mediatheque (511 NW Broadway) on Saturday, March 9 from 10am – 2:30pm. This is a free community event designed to teach people to add and edit information about cis and transgender women and nonbinary folks to Wikipedia. We'll have training sessions, artist talks, snacks, free childcare, and plenty of exciting energy and collaboration! You're welcome to drop in any time during the event. Participants are encouraged to bring their own laptops and charging cables, though if you are not able, computer stations will be available. Please visit this link for more information. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education, in partnership with social practice artist Shoshana Gugenheim and as part of the Art+Feminism Project, will host the 2nd Annual International Women's Day Wikipedia Edit-a-thon to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles for Jewish women artists. The event will be held at the museum on Thursday, March 7 from 4 to 8 pm. Pre-registration is preferred but not required. Members of the public are invited to come to the museum to learn about the editing process, its history, its impact, and how to do it. We aim to collaboratively edit/enter 18 Jewish women artists into the canon. Support will be provided by an experienced local Wikipedian who will be on site to teach and guide the process. This edit-a-thon will serve as both a public art action and a public educational program. Participants will have an opportunity to select an artist/s ahead of time or on site.

Please visit this link and the meetup page for more information. Thanks! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I sent you an email William Gazecki 23:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC) William Gazecki 16:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgazecki (talk • contribs)

@Wgazecki: thank you for the notice! I do not see anything in the email that couldn't be better addressed here; my preference would to discuss in Wikipedia talk space rather than over email. Any objection? VQuakr (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello VQuakr/Archives,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for my (first) thanks. What I did not include in the Biot-Savart edit is that Laplace was a kind of mentor/support of Biot, since around 1800 (so it is not so surprising that Laplace was involved in 1820), and also Biot in his 1824 book on the experiments (which was actually the first time the results were reported in detail) explicitly mentions that Laplace did the calculations (so not even a dispute). In short, Biot-Savart were skillful experimenters who provided the empirical results, Laplace provided the mathematical law based on the results, and the rest...as is said...is history... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdc870 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr, thanks for your comment. I understand that it is not editorially favourable to have an extensive list and the only reason it was suggested was because I wanted to avoid editorialising what is notable and what is not. So rather than having a limited list of investments with a potentially misleading adjective, I thought it would be better to have just a factual description of all the investments. But given your advice, I think it would be better to simply remove references to the individual investments altogether. In a similar message to Spintendo, I've suggested just removing the current information under the "investments" headline and just replacing it with two simple sentences: PEP has made more than 30 operating company investments as well as 100 bolt-on acquisitions since its founding more than 20 years ago. ^[1] The firm has raised more than AUD 8 billion across five funds in that time and is the largest PE firm in Australia with deal flow nearly double that of the next largest firm since at least 2014. ^[2] StaceyCretella (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, VQuakr,

As you posted a WP:FAN mark on the Jitters article a month ago, could you kindly take a look at it once again in order to remove it? The article has been updated to the level of the (original) Belarusian Wikipedia version, while that one is considered as a WP:GA one over there, i.e the honorable star was assessed mostly by natives who can evaluate sources both in the Russian and Belarusian languages, and such.

Have a nice day! -- pr12402, April 23, 2019.

Hi, @Pr12402: I honestly don't see much improvement in that department; I think the article needs a total rewrite. Please note that different language encyclopedias have different quality and tone standards.

To be fair it could be just me, though; feel free to post to Talk:Jitters (band) and ask for additional opinions. VQuakr (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome post, I will read beginners pages. Thank you for your kindness so needed in this World. Again thank you. --LLcentury (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I am curious as to why my edits about my son's book were removed by you from the article about books written by children? I added Aslan Tudor to the list for his book Young Water Protectors. I included two links to articles about him and his book. He is my son, the information was basic and factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1f90:68e0:282c:dee5:5721:534f (talk • contribs)

Because neither your son nor the book has an article on Wikipedia about them. Please also review WP:COI, our policy about editing with a conflict of interest. VQuakr (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

So how can I get him added to this list? Does he need a Wikipedia article about him to be on this list? If not, who can add him? My COI didn't influence the information I added, as the information is simply factual statements with no bias and articles to back it up. I'm genuinely interested in doing this correctly.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RationalWiki (3rd nomination)

Please review the rather lengthy AFD rational I added to the page. I was typing up the rational when you posted the comment. I did not expect anyone to comment on the page within 10-15 minutes, and merely used "Fails GNG" as placeholder text. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9: thanks for the heads-up; I'll take another look. In the future, you might consider stating that the nomination is a placeholder rather than inserting text that could be mistaken for a completed nomination. VQuakr (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello VQuakr/Archives,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

• Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
• Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

• A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
• There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
• What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Over at the Teahouse we're having a bit of a 'spring clean' by removing old entries from the list of Hosts that new users see. As you don't appear to have been very active there for some time, your 'host profile' has been removed from the list. But please don't let that put you off contributing again in the future - either by signing back up as a Host to assist on a regular basis, or just dropping in whenever you fancy helping out.

Thank you for all your past help and support for new users at the Teahouse. Hope to see you there again soon. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello VQuakr/Archives,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

A user called Cambial Yellowing , who claims to be a new editor, has removed Bellingcat , saying it is not currently regarded as a reliable source, from the Douma chemical attack page. Do you think that can be right? The discussion from four years ago seemed to be split, and if Bellingcat is removed as a RS for well researched content , what does it say about how wikipedia is getting abused by a totalitarian POV and pro Assad/Putin regime pov pushers and war crimes deniers? Thingaboutit (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Thingaboutit: there are valid arguments either way for Bellingcat, and reliability of sources is both content-dependent and context-dependent. I suggest adhering a lot more closely to WP:AGF. Are you a new editor, yourself? VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

So, on the Douma chemical attack article, would you say Bellingcat passed or failed on content and context dependent considerations? ( I am not a new editor. When someone is not a new editor its usually very obvious isn't it). Thingaboutit (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Depends. Some people lurk/read the instructions long enough they can look not-too-new from their first edit. What accounts have you had before? VQuakr (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Ive had a couple. That is of no interest. What interests/distresses me is how bad the article on Douma chemical attack is going to get. Thingaboutit (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It is of interest to me if you are asking me to focus more on that article. VQuakr (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I edited as Sayerslle, and as Dan the Plumber but got banned for my inability to use polite language when addressing war crimes deniers and useful idiots for totalitarian and repressive regimes. The Russian and Syrian regimes and their army of trolls hate Bellingcat and the OPCW russians war on opcw, because Bellingcat lays bare their pathetic and manifold lies. Bellingcat has been proven right from the attacks on Eastern Ghouta in 2013, to MH 17, and on to the poisonings of the Skripals, hence I felt it was a politically motivated act when a 'new' editor appeared, claiming not to know anything much about Bellingcat, but indubitably sufficiently alert to its existence to seek to expunge its reports from the Douma chemical attack page with the highly dubious assertion that it had been decided four years ago that it was not a RS. Bellingcat has collaborated only in the past weekbbc news ukwith a BBC investigation on the Skripal poisonings. Its reputation is beyond doubt. The film 'Bellingcat Truth in a Post Truth World' has received acclaim the beauty of bellingcat variety review. The editors who trashed Bellingcat as a non RS - are dishonest trash. They have been outdistanced by how Bellingcat is regarded now. They are out of time. Not in the totalitarian world, but they are , or should be, out of time in the free thinking world. A 'new' editor who doesn't know much about Bellingcat but assiduously goes about rubbishing it as an RS , and expunging its detailed and painstaking analysis on Douma - no, I do not AGF. I smell a rat. They hate Bellingcat, and it's very obvious why. Finally, I don't know that I am asking you to focus on that article in fact, God knows its a horrible and thankless thing to mix it in any way with these types - they seem to me heirs to the Stalinist tradition of falsification and it is a nightmare world to get involved with. I wish you well. 78.144.95.36 (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty here. As a reminder, every time you circumvent your block, you restart the clock on a shot at the standard offer to indefinitely-blocked accounts. That might not matter much if you are so passionate about this subject that you couldn't edit there without drawing a block anyways, but it is something to consider regardless. Personally, I think it would be great if you could someday again edit here legitimately. I also wish you well, but to be clear I am not going to help you work around your block or engage in behavior that gives that appearance. VQuakr (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Every article has a pencil icon at the top. Tap on the pencil icon to start editing.

Edit Cards

This is what the new Edit Cards for editing links in the mobile visual editor look like. You can try the prototype here: 📲 Try Edit Cards.

Welcome back to the Editing newsletter.

Since the last newsletter, the team has released two new features for the mobile visual editor and has started developing three more. All of this work is part of the team's goal to make editing on mobile web simpler.

Before talking about the team's recent releases, we have a question for you:

Are you willing to try a new way to add and change links?

If you are interested, we would value your input! You can try this new link tool in the mobile visual editor on a separate wiki.

Follow these instructions and share your experience:

📲 Try Edit Cards.

The mobile visual editor is a simpler editing tool, for smartphones and tablets using the mobile site. The Editing team has recently launched two new features to improve the mobile visual editor:

1. Section editing
   • The purpose is to help contributors focus on their edits.
   • The team studied this with an A/B test. This test showed that contributors who could use section editing were 1% more likely to publish the edits they started than people with only full-page editing.
2. Loading overlay
   • The purpose is to smooth the transition between reading and editing.

Section editing and the new loading overlay are now available to everyone using the mobile visual editor.

This is a list of our most active projects. Watch these pages to learn about project updates and to share your input on new designs, prototypes and research findings.

• Edit cards: This is a clearer way to add and edit links, citations, images, templates, etc. in articles. You can try this feature now. Go here to see how: 📲Try Edit Cards.
• Mobile toolbar refresh: This project will learn if contributors are more successful when the editing tools are easier to recognize.
• Mobile visual editor availability: This A/B test asks: Are newer contributors more successful if they use the mobile visual editor? We are collaborating with 20 Wikipedias to answer this question.
• Usability improvements: This project will make the mobile visual editor easier to use.  The goal is to let contributors stay focused on editing and to feel more confident in the editing tools.

• Wikimania: Several members of the Editing Team will be attending Wikimania in August 2019. They will lead a session about mobile editing in the Community Growth space. Talk to them about how editing can be improved.
• Talk Pages: In the coming months, the Editing Team will begin improving talk pages and communication on the wikis.

The VisualEditor on mobile is a good place to learn more about the projects we are working on. The team wants to talk with you about anything related to editing. If you have something to say or ask, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) and Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

To the editor named "VQUAKR", i think that you are spreading a disinformation here by posting bogus articles. You claim that you're an engineer, however the false information you've posted regarding "Electronic harassment" makes you look like a Con-Man who's out to discredit victims of electronic harassment at the expense of the victims of crime. I suggest you come clean with your paid disinformation propaganda and change the bogus information you have posted. Speaking of your false electronic harassment article, i suggest you carefully read what the former fbi directors, government military contractors, scientists, journalists and military intelligence officers have said to confirm the reality of electronic stalkng and it's targets. Thus, wikipedia shouldn't be infested by individuals like you who spread false information to the world. Please Stop misinforming the public. Judohoror (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. My contributions to the article Electronic harassment have been quite minimal. If you believe there are reliably sourced viewpoints that are not reflected in the article, you should discuss at Talk:Electronic harassment. VQuakr (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

your contributions to the "electronic harassment" page has not been minimal. Since you are labeling victims of this atrocious crime as "delusional people " Labeling legit victims of military weapons is a crime. I believe # you may have something to gain# by doing so that's why you're denying the truth. have you been paid by those who practice this horrendous crime to discredit the more than 300 thousand victims of electronic harassment all over the world inorder to keep the crime hidden for generations to come? Judohoror (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Provide a WP:DIFF of where I labeled anyone "delusional people" or retract your claim. VQuakr (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, i think the page that we've been using to exchange messages is not working. since i am unable to see my sent messages i believe there's something wrong with it. did you get my response to your last message? please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judohoror (talk • contribs) 09:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Judohoror: yes, this is your third post here and my replies are above, in an indented sequence. VQuakr (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Broken formatting

To answer your question about you saying " delusional people" is attached below. what you've mentioned was not only about "delusions" but also about "An alien abduction" which is loughable and hurtful to the victims of electronic harassment who's lives have been destroyed by the "dark forces" of the world that includs the corporate mafias. The medical professionals you mentioned about are those who spread disinformation because they are part of the criminal empire, and recruits of the "dark forces" who are able to manipulate anyone with their money or government positions, and practice high tech - lynching/electronic harassment on innocent civilians with no quetions asked. because ..........they can. because nobody cares about the victims! Here's what you wrote below which is full of disinformation. "Multiple medical professionals have evaluated that these experiences are hallucinations; the result of delusional disorders or psychosis,[4][5] the same sources from which arise religious delusions, accounts of alien abductions, and beliefs in visitations from dead relatives. It can be difficult to persuade people who experience them that their belief in an external influence is delusional."() i say If those victims of electronic harassment you are talking about are delusional, then the US embassy employees in Cuba and Russia must also be delusional! Also the investigators who have been helping investigate the electronic/psychotronic weapons harassment of the embassy employees must also be delusionals as well per the so called " Medical professionals" you are talking about who are trying to discredit victims of high tech crimes in the usa and beyond. by posting such bogus information you are enabling the "high-tech lynching" phenomenon to continue indefinetily. only cruel and monsterous individuals want to keep others in the dark with no help & justice through secrecy and disinformation. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/cubas-sonic-attack-on-the-u-s-embassy-could-have-been-merely-sounds-emitted-by-a-listening-device https://www.cbsnews.com/news/infra-and-ultrasonic-waves-thought-to-be-responsible-for-cuba-attacks/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judohoror (talk • contribs) 16:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Judohoror: I am having trouble parsing what you are saying due to the broken formatting, but I don't see any WP:DIFF as requested. I also don't see any quotes that are attributable to me; what gives you the idea that I wrote them? In any case, please do not make another unsupported accusation. Concerns about the article's content should be discussed at Talk:Electronic harassment. VQuakr (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello VQuakr/Archives,

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)

Reminder about altering other users' comments

Hi, VQuakr, this is just a friendly reminder about Wikipedia's WP:Talk page guidelines, and in particular, the general prohibition on Editing others' comments. As explained at WP:TPO: "The basic rule... is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission."

Recently at Talk:Assault rifle, section "Selective fire", you removed some comments by another editor in this edit, citing WP:FORUM. After you were reverted by another user who left the edit summary "misreading of FORUM", you doubled down and removed the material again. Please don't do this, as it is against the Talk page guideline.

There are a few exceptions to the basic rule about not altering another user's comments, but none of them applied here. In particular, WP:NOTFORUM is not one of the exceptions. See WP:TPO. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: duly noted, thanks. FWIW I didn't realize I had removed that comment the second time; I must have screwed up the edit conflict cleanup. VQuakr (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I know what you mean; I'm sure I've done that, during ec cleanup as well. Happy editing, Mathglot (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages – October 2019

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Inside this newsletter, the Editing team talks about their work on the mobile visual editor, on the new talk pages project, and at Wikimania 2019.

Help

What talk page interactions do you remember? Is it a story about how someone helped you to learn something new? Is it a story about how someone helped you get involved in a group? Something else? Whatever your story is, we want to hear it!

Please tell us a story about how you used a talk page. Please share a link to a memorable discussion, or describe it on the talk page for this project. The team would value your examples. These examples will help everyone develop a shared understanding of what this project should support and encourage.

Talk Pages

The Talk Pages Consultation was a global consultation to define better tools for wiki communication. From February through June 2019, more than 500 volunteers on 20 wikis, across 15 languages and multiple projects, came together with members of the Foundation to create a product direction for a set of discussion tools. The Phase 2 Report of the Talk Page Consultation was published in August. It summarizes the product direction the team has started to work on, which you can read more about here: Talk Page Project project page.

The team needs and wants your help at this early stage. They are starting to develop the first idea. Please add your name to the "Getting involved" section of the project page, if you would like to hear about opportunities to participate.

Mobile visual editor

The Editing team is trying to make it simpler to edit on mobile devices. The team is changing the visual editor on mobile. If you have something to say about editing on a mobile device, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

Edit Cards

• On 3 September, the Editing team released version 3 of Edit Cards. Anyone could use the new version in the mobile visual editor.
• There is an updated design on the Edit Card for adding and modifying links. There is also a new, combined workflow for editing a link's display text and target.
• Feedback: You can try the new Edit Cards by opening the mobile visual editor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Edit cards talk page.

Toolbar

• In September, the Editing team updated the mobile visual editor's editing toolbar. Anyone could see these changes in the mobile visual editor.
  • One toolbar: All of the editing tools are located in one toolbar. Previously, the toolbar changed when you clicked on different things.
  • New navigation: The buttons for moving forward and backward in the edit flow have changed.
  • Seamless switching: an improved workflow for switching between the visual and wikitext modes.
• Feedback: You can try the refreshed toolbar by opening the mobile VisualEditor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Toolbar feedback talk page.

Wikimania

The Editing Team attended Wikimania 2019 in Sweden. They led a session on the mobile visual editor and a session on the new talk pages project. They tested two new features in the mobile visual editor with contributors. You can read more about what the team did and learned in the team's report on Wikimania 2019.

Looking ahead

• Talk Pages Project: The team is thinking about the first set of proposed changes. The team will be working with a few communities to pilot those changes. The best way to stay informed is by adding your username to the list on the project page: Getting involved.
• Testing the mobile visual editor as the default: The Editing team plans to post results before the end of the calendar year. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: VisualEditor as mobile default project page.
• Measuring the impact of Edit Cards: The Editing team hopes to share results in November. This study asks whether the project helped editors add links and citations. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: Edit Cards project page.

– PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello VQuakr/Archives,

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 811 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)

"Ginevra de' Benci (Q3494135)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ginevra de' Benci (Q3494135). Since you had some involvement with the Ginevra de' Benci (Q3494135) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:44, 5 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Native American blogs has been nominated for discussion

Category:Native American blogs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

David Wood's (Christian apologist) Birthplace

Hi. Why did you undo my edit to David Wood's profile, where I added his birthplace? What was wrong with said edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamBrother83 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Like I mentioned in my edit summary, content must be verifiable. A link to a screencap of a personal email does not qualify as verifiable. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

How can I verify said information, then? Can I forward you our email exchange as proof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamBrother83 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The subject could mention his home town in a published interview. VQuakr (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Made my day

This made my day! Spyder212 (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Spyder212: thanks, I actually didn't notice until just now that you and Tyler had already commented on it or I probably would have moved along. It doesn't appear that they see the humor in it yet. VQuakr (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Monday, December 23, 5:30pm PST. You can join us virtually from your PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android at this link: https://virginia.zoom.us/my/wikilgbt. The address of the physical meeting is: Capitol Hill Meeting Room at Capitol Hill Library (425 Harvard Ave. E., Seattle, WA 98102) 47°37′23″N 122°19′22″W / 47.622928°N 122.322912°W / 47.622928; -122.322912 The event page is here. You do not have to be a member to attend, but only members can vote in board elections. New members may join in person by completing the membership registration form onsite or (to be posted) online and paying $5 for a calendar year / $0.50 per month for the remainder of a year. Current members may renew for 2019 at the meeting as well.

18:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC) To subscribe or unsubscribe from future messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name from this list.

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.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

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)