User talk:FallingGravity/Archive 5

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

DYK nomination of Monument to Women Memorial Garden

Hello! Your submission of Monument to Women Memorial Garden at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review my DYK nomination

Any chance you could review my DYK nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Dibb? — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bold markup consensus

How does it neeed consensus? It doesn't change the look. Under WP:BADHEAD it states it's not good to use as a "header". And also it is not good for screenreader users. --Jennica✿ / talk 20:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jennica: I'm not sure why a semicolon is used, but I think it's best to have consistency in these pages to avoid confusing new users. Changing a couple page's formatting won't stop new pages from having the old formatting. Getting a talk page consensus will help resolve potential edit wars. FallingGravity 21:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where would I get consensus? At the "Current events" talk page? --Jennica✿ / talk 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jennica: Yeah, probably on the Portal talk:Current events page. Combing through the archives, I see it's been discussed before, but there was no real discussion or proposal. You might even want to start a WP:RfC to get more opinions. FallingGravity 22:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Em listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Em. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Em redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Charles Ellis Johnson

On 30 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charles Ellis Johnson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mormon photographer Charles Ellis Johnson made artistic nudes and risqué stereoviews (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Ellis Johnson. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Charles Ellis Johnson), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 30 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Monument to Women Memorial Garden

Hello! Your submission of Monument to Women Memorial Garden at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ~ Rob13Talk 11:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Yiannopoulos

Re your recent reversion... First it violates 1RR which proscribes re-adding any material that is challenged by reversion w/o talk page consensus. Secondly while some sources may be using that descriptor, the vast majority are not. I am not going to join this rather early edit war but I would gently encourage you to self-revert and take this to the article talk page. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Disrupt J20 "anti-fascist"?

I added this category because it says on its website: "We support the right of all attendees to feel safe and empowered while expressing their opposition to the Trump regime and the fascism it represents." Thus, I thought Category:Anti-fascism in the United States would be appropriate. The article also says they're allied with the DC Antifascist Coalition. FallingGravity 06:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying, @FallingGravity:. I have no horse in the race. If the category exists as a place for all organizations that are self-described using this moniker, then it seems fine. The only issue that others might raise is a BLP/NPOV issue, that as the J20 group existed, at least to start, with the singular purpose of resisting one individual, it is hard escape the contention that labeling itself anti-f is to equate the person/target they are resisting with the f label—so that our unfiltered reporting of their self-ascription then becomes WP's joining in their equating target with label. But if this is how it is done—if we simply categorize groups based on their self-ascriptions—then I can see how there might be emotional objections, but not prevailing, policy-based objections. As for the substance of the matter, there has been editorializing in decent places like the Times and Washpo that argue for the careful use of the term f—that if everyone with whom we disagree is a f, then the word loses its meaning. I am sympathetic to this argument, having had family flee from actual national socialist and fascist (as well as communist) regimes in the past. And, for that matter, I have had family fight on the sides of causes that while they might not be f, they were certainly authoritarian. All this is too say that words have meanings, and it is important to promote their deeper understanding and proper use. With regard, Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would also encourage you, with your thoughtfulness, to consider contributing to the substance of the article. In particular, as I noted in an expand section tag, the article is particularly weak on (i) what they actually did/accomplished on the 20th, and (ii) what they have done since, and intend as their future course. I will look in, especially to add news from major venues regarding the outcome of any trials or investigations, but my time, and expertise/interest on this is limited. Just trying to add what I can, to the things I read. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And 1,7-octadiene? mdr, you do indeed have broad interests as well. Will probably have a look there. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I'm reading above, I don't think the category can remain. We need independent reliable sources using this descriptor. What we have at the moment is a self description that is describing President Trump as representing fascism. That's not enough for us. And we need to be very careful about potentially implying that Trump as a fascist in wiki-voice without RS sources. There may in fact be RS sources that are using that descriptor for this group, but until they are found I'm not comfortable with it. I suggest it be removed for now. I also want to be clear that there is no question here of bad faith editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, @Ad Orientem: no understanding of the policies and guidelines that apply, and so no opinion. Please, you and FG sort this, and one of you make the edit, of need be. Meanwhile, category is invisible to the reader, so no negative impact. Thanks. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a super huge issue. I was asked for my opinion and I have given it. If FG disagrees and someone wants to make an issue of it we can open a discussion on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello FallingGravity,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 809 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Insertcleverphrasehere/Genesis creation story move request

I noticed you recently reviewed a userpage of mine. The page is intended as a preparation for an upcoming RM that I have planned, as you probably guessed. I am curious how you ended up there, though in any case, since you did, any comments to make about the proposal? I want to get it right from the start, as the last RM over there was a huge mess due to the lack of a clear argument or justification from the OP at the start.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello FallingGravity,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 809 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Monument to Women Memorial Garden

On 8 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Monument to Women Memorial Garden, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Barbara B. Smith created the Monument to Women Memorial Garden to defend traditional women's values from the perceived threat of the Equal Rights Amendment? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Monument to Women Memorial Garden. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Monument to Women Memorial Garden), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lavender (BadBadNotGood song), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Madonna and Bow Wow. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Trump accuses Obama of wiretapping.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Trump accuses Obama of wiretapping.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Train2104 (t • c) 05:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lavender (BadBadNotGood song)

On 11 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lavender (BadBadNotGood song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that President Donald Trump criticized Snoop Dogg's remix music video of "Lavender" for having a scene in which Snoop fires a flag gun at a clown parody version of Trump? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lavender (BadBadNotGood song). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lavender (BadBadNotGood song)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Bride

Wikipedia is not The Princess Bride

"Neutral"?

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

— Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride (1987)[1]

See NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. Have fun. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, thanks. FallingGravity 07:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2017 Berkeley protests for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2017 Berkeley protests 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/2017 Berkeley protests until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BadBadNotGood has been nominated for discussion

Category:BadBadNotGood, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello FallingGravity,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 809 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD at Murder of Seth Rich

Thank you for your contributions at Murder of Seth Rich.

But please read WP:LEAD.

Please note this [1] is inappropriate.

Stuff in lede MUST be in body text first.

Please read the edit-notice at Murder of Seth Rich.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wat

seems like you didn't read the page well enough? Lil Johnny (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:MormonLeaks/GA1

I've copyedited and updated the article, the logo was changed, and all issues addressed. Do you think maybe possibly you could have another look at Talk:MormonLeaks/GA1, since that was the only issue? Sagecandor (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My reply is in Talk:MormonLeaks. FallingGravity 01:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the helpful suggestions ! Sagecandor (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Dream Mine

On 28 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dream Mine, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Hyrum Koyle built the Dream Mine after the Angel Moroni reportedly showed him a Nephite mine in Salem, Utah, which would help fund the gathering of Israel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dream Mine. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dream Mine), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

IronGargoyle (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Nabra Hassanen

Hi FallingGravity - thanks for your great edit on Killing of Nabra Hassanen. I see you marked it as minor, if that was intentional you might want to have a look at WP:MINOR. Cheers AntiVan (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the script I sometimes use marks some of my edits as minor. I'll watch out next time. FallingGravity 22:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello FallingGravity, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump’s Russian related business dealings listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Donald Trump’s Russian related business dealings. Since you had some involvement with the Donald Trump’s Russian related business dealings redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG talk 07:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Praying (song)

Hi, I noticed that with this edit, a script you used changed the date format in the date parameter of the Scottish and UK single chart templates from YYYY-MM-DD to mdy. These parameters need to stay YYYY-MM-DD, as they are how the website archives them, so if you run scripts on music-related pages, please be careful of this in future. Thanks! Ss112 15:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Keith Johnston (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC) ==[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Keith Johnston (talk) 08:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello FallingGravity, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

  • Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
  • Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Request for comment here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review#2017_Catalonia_attacks Reaper7 (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2017 University of Utah Hospital incident for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2017 University of Utah Hospital incident 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/2017 University of Utah Hospital incident until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Fram (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: United Utah Party (September 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chris troutman was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Chris Troutman (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! FallingGravity, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Chris Troutman (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello FallingGravity, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

  • On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
  • Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Your opinion/s would be welcome here

[2] Reaper7 (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello FallingGravity, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

  • Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN

If you continue to violate WP:OWN and make unilaterally deletion without discussion or consensus, I will refer you to AN/I.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you seriously think an opinion article in the New York Post is a reliable source for a WP:BLP, then I have some news for you. FallingGravity 20:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, FallingGravity. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish studies scholars

Regarding your recent revert, please present your reasons for keeping this subsection here. Thanks in advance! --Wiking (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello FallingGravity, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
  • Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

  • If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

  • A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
  • Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
  • The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Weinstein effect

Dear FallingGravity: Re: Weinstein effect: Contary to a popular misconception in Wikipedia, I would argue that material sourced with a primary source does not always need a secondary source. The rule in Wikipedia is that articles should be based mainly on secondary sources. However, the use of primary sourcing is allowed for specific points in an article -- regardless of the presence or lack of a secondary source.

The preference for secondary source is due to the need to avoid prohibited original research (for example, taking statement A from Primary Source A and Statement B from Primary Source B and writing Conclusion C -- a conclusion not found in Sources A and B).

I would argue that the mere use of a primary source is not normally objectionable. Famspear (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Here is the actual rule (bolding added):

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

The mere use of a primary source, in and of itself, is not an "analysis" or "interpretive or synthetic claim" about the primary source. The use of a primary source that does not constitute an "analysis" or "interpretive or synthetic claim" does not need to be "referenced to a secondary or tertiary source." Famspear (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Famspear: I realize primary sources are acceptable in some cases. However, the text of the bill doesn't mention the Weinstein effect or #MeToo, so adding this to one of these articles seems like original research. However, it isn't that hard to find secondary sources that make this connection: [3][4] FallingGravity 00:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello FallingGravity, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

  • The total number of reviews completed for the month.
  • The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

  1. ^ "Inconceivable" — YouTube
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:FallingGravity/Archive_5"