Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tutelary (talk | contribs) at 20:41, 11 May 2021 (OneClickArchiver adding 1 discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tutelary. 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.

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 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 Misplaced Pages 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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Belle Delphine

Do the YouTube references absolutely have to be removed? I feel like they have a supporting role and aren't meant to be a primary citation. Personally I think the draft is good enough for mainspace. Aitch & Aitch Aitch (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Aitch & Aitch Aitch I actually went through the article and replaced one, the other two serve the limited purpose WP:PRIMARY requires. It should be fine. Just submit and I will likely accept. Tutelary (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

(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 Misplaced Pages: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)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Tutelary,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

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

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Was gud?

Aye 🤪 loll was goin on. Type shi im bored asll n type tryna do sumfin yk? quoranteen got me shlumped 😒 on god........ anyway so u editin? U edit hard asf tho i see. keep it up 👍 rs Bajirao1007 (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

...For your support on Plandemic's talk page. I'm getting very frustrated with Guy's objections to something as innocuous as an infobox. The attempt to delete the article by Slatersteven was an odd move too, but it looks like most of the editors are against that. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

... and once more. After a full day of that ridiculous series of arguments for arguments' sake, my anxiety was getting triggered. I cooled off for the weekend, and responded to Guy one last time. Your efforts are valiant, but it's clear that those editors are denying the article an infobox because they are so offended by the subject that they cannot distinguish the two, nor the difference between arguing for improving the article and supporting/denigrating the article's subject, viz. ultimately accusing the editor (me), of variously bad faith, supporting woo or being a SPA. I am very, very glad I took another day or two off and that you stepped into the breach, because I might have lost my temper once that happened. They didn't even have to look at my edit history. They could have looked at the dozens of articles I've created, listed on my front page, mostly films and video (as I said). Some editors are just stubborn people who cannot admit when they are wrong and are best left to their own devices. It's just not worth it. While the infobox would add to the usefulness of the article, it's not doing any harm that it's not there. That I was reverted for adding one was not so much petty as an honest mistake. As you say, Slatersteven is an unknown. But the others: Guy, especially, its hard to believe he's an admin, or why he has such an axe to grind about infoboxes--some editors really do hate them I guess. Since I started writing articles myself without interruption, I've enjoyed Misplaced Pages a lot more. I rarely have to get into stupid arguments like this now. No good deed goes unpunished. I wouldn't bother doing an RfC now. The topic looks to me to be already canvassed.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I did my last bit of arguing. And left them a goodbye FU (not really).ZarhanFastfire (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Louis Rossmann

The article Louis Rossmann has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A few valid sources do not provide an in-depth background info for this person. Furthermore, "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed"

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nightvour (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Louis Rossmann for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Louis Rossmann is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Louis Rossmann 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. Nightvour (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)