User talk:Casprings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

December 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm JFG. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Template:Trump presidency have been reverted or removed because they could seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please refrain from adding allegations of Russian involvement in the US presidential election everywhere you can think of. The discussion at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#Russian influence by Trump does not show any support from other editors to emphasize this material. Don't make it a personal crusade; your actions are getting borderline disruptive. Thanks.JFG talk 22:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Hello JFG. While I will return to the talk page try to discuss the issues regarding WP:Weight, I would ask that you WP:assumegoodfaith. There is nothing in WP:BLP that would prevent including well sourced statements from WP:RS. To call them defamatory or libel is ridiculous.Casprings (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear Casprings, I am totally convinced that you are acting in good faith and you think this story is "historical", My view is that this story is more "hysterical". Whatever our personal views, we must keep a balanced presentation of the issues for readers to make up their mind. Most editors who commented happen to disagree with you on the appropriate weight to give this incident, so I'm just asking you to WP:LISTEN. Sorry if my tone was a bit harsh: the goal was to get your attention. Regarding the "libelous" warning, this was the closest boilerplate warning available, it doesn't exactly reflect the situation. Happy editing! — JFG talk 08:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
If both parties agree the user was acting in good faith, he should not have been templated. Sagecandor (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear JFG, that is true that in one discussion on the placing it into the opening of Donald Trump, more editors disagreed. Consensus building is important, but wikipedia must maintain WP:balance and I have not seen a logically convincing argument why outside interference by a foreign government does not belong in the opening of any article that mentions the 2016 election. I am more then willing to work for a compromise, but that that also involves my viewpoint and eventually using the dispute resolution process to get more outside viewpoints. Casprings (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Understood. I have commented on your RfC at WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. — JFG talk 06:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestion for a new article[edit]

Thank you for your suggestion for a new article at Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia#Trump.27s_Linkage_to_Russia_Sub_page.3F.

Here are some sources that could be used, this might be helpful to you :

  1. Tom Hamburger, Rosalind S. Helderman and Michael Birnbaum (June 17, 2016), "Inside Trump's financial ties to Russia and his unusual flattery of Vladimir Putin", The Washington Post, retrieved December 14, 2016
  2. Nesbit, Jeff (August 15, 2016), "Donald Trump's Many, Many, Many, Many Ties to Russia", Time, retrieved December 14, 2016
  3. Michael Stott and Catherine Belton (October 16, 2016), "Trump's Russian connections", Financial Times, retrieved December 14, 2016
  4. Miller, James (November 7, 2016), "Trump and Russia", The Daily Beast, retrieved December 14, 2016
  5. Kirchick, James (April 27, 2016), "Donald Trump's Russia connections", Politico, retrieved December 14, 2016
  6. "Obama hits Trump over intel briefings, alleged Russia connections", Fox News, December 13, 2016, retrieved December 14, 2016
  7. Farkas, Evelyn (December 12, 2016), "Here's What America Needs to Know About Trump and Russia", Politico, retrieved December 14, 2016
  8. "Trump advisers with Russian ties", MSNBC, December 11, 2016, retrieved December 14, 2016
  9. Reich, Robert (December 13, 2016), "Robert Reich: Donald Trump's Treacherous Ties to Russia", Newsweek, retrieved December 14, 2016
  10. Rozsa, Matthew (November 4, 2016), "Presidential candidate Donald Trump's Russian ties are scaring NATO allies", Salon, retrieved December 14, 2016
  11. Wasserman, Harvey (December 12, 2016), "Electoral College Must Not Vote Until Possible Trump Ties to Russian Hacking are Fully Investigated", The Huffington Post, retrieved December 14, 2016
  12. Smith, Geoffrey (November 2, 2016), "Meet the Russian Bank with Ties to Donald Trump", Fortune, retrieved December 14, 2016
  13. Foer, Franklin (October 31, 2015), "Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?", Slate, retrieved December 14, 2016
  14. Rozsa, Matthew (November 1, 2016), "Donald Trump company's server was connected to Russian bank", Salon, retrieved December 14, 2016
  15. Scott Bixby and Ben Jacobs (November 1, 2016), "Trump campaign denies report of Trump Organization tie to Russian bank", The Guardian, retrieved December 14, 2016
  16. Mastroianni, Brian (November 1, 2016), "Was a Trump computer server connected to Russia?", CBS News, retrieved December 14, 2016
  17. Montini, EJ (November 10, 2016), "Russians admit Trump connection. Will Trump?", The Arizona Republic, retrieved December 14, 2016
  18. "Are there any Trump links to Putin?", BBC News, BBC, July 27, 2016, retrieved December 14, 2016
  19. Grimes, Roger A. (November 1, 2016), "Is it real? The Trump-Russia server connection", InfoWorld, retrieved December 14, 2016
  20. Benen, Steve (November 1, 2016), "Trump's Russia ties become the subject of multiple controversies", The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, retrieved December 14, 2016
  21. Kim, Lucian (December 14, 2016), "Trump's Men In Moscow: Trump Disciples Suddenly Showing Up In Russia", National Public Radio, retrieved December 14, 2016
  22. Chance, Matthew (December 15, 2016), "Why are Trump loyalists showing up in Moscow?", CNN, retrieved December 15, 2016

Here are some sources that are examples. Sagecandor (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Sagecandor I agree. Just got busy so I am not sure when I will be able to put something together.Casprings (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Okay no rush and good luck with it, I hope this above will be helpful to you in your research. Note that two of the authors, above, are notable. Sagecandor (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Added one to above list. Sagecandor (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Title change[edit]

Greetings Casprings! I noticed that you recently changed the title of Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia to Donald Trump's affiliations with Russia. This title change is potentially controversial, so I have undone it, with no prejudice to its validity. Please open a move request so that it can be discussed among editors. Kind regards, — JFG talk 19:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If nobody contests it, then it is not "controversial". Are you contesting it? It's clear that Casprings' new title is innocuous by virtue of being more general, and is therefore less in need of justification, than the old one. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
JFG, SPECIFICO That's fine. I will open a move request. I tried to move it in haste and not sure how to undue what I just did. Casprings (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm unclear as to the history of this. Have there been 3 or more moves/move-backs? SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg 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.

Please be careful when editing this article. There are editors who may aggressively claim that you have violated these sanctions.

SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

You seem to be in breach of the Arbitration Remedy reading: You...must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page, which you did on 19:51, 17 February 2017 to this version. Therefore, you are admonished and sanctioned as follows: topic ban from the article's subject for 24 hours (including talk pages). El_C 22:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Casprings (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

This seems a harsh to me. I reverted once to JFK revert and went to the talk page. I thought that would be 1rr. I also feel the user or admin should have notified me of a discussion about me.That said, I understand the need to gain concensus and I have been working to that. Casprings (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're not blocked from editing. To appeal your discretionary sanctions, see WP:AE. Max Semenik (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

What does JFK has to do with anything? Do you understand your penalty? (And reason for it?) You are not blocked, though came very close to it. You are topic banned (self-enforced). I actually thought you were aware of that discussion, my mistake. (Though I am certainly not obliged to serve such notifications when implementing DS). El_C 22:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Casprings, you had not yet received the template notice at the time of the offending reinstatement of sourced content. The TBAN seems inappropriate. SPECIFICO talk 23:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not obliged to use the template, nor does the timing need be immediate. Casprings may, of course, appeal at AE. El_C 23:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh hi @El C: -- I didn't mean the appeal template. I meant the Notice of the Discretionary Sanctions I posted here. Casprings seemed unaware of the reinstatement of disputed content provision. When I saw the edit in which he violated that provision, I realized that nobody had placed the required notice on his talk page. I have known Casprings to be a thougthful and unaggressive editor on many articles, so it was evident to me that his violation was inadvertent. SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
It is possible to miss I'd certainly grant you. At the same time, it is at the top of the page whenever an edit is made. It's not the simplest provision, but editors have been blocked due to it, and I suspect will continue to. I opted not to block, and frankly, expected relief rather than angst. El_C 23:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
That is true. However, I went to the talk page and didn't go beyond 1rr. Maybe it isn't too harsh. I just rather appeal then not.Casprings (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not relieved, because the other editor brought this up as a retaliatory move against his "enemies list" whereas Casprings is a scrupulously careful editor for whom a simple reminder, which I gave him with the notice, is sufficient preventive therapy. Gucci, in my opinion, was looking for retribution, not WP policy-based prevention. SPECIFICO talk 01:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Might as well close the AE appeal[edit]

Per my comment. Assume this is OK with you. Even though the issues have some interest, a decision won't make much difference. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston works for me.Casprings (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Cite error[edit]

This edit introduced a cite error because no ref named "Dorrel" exists. ―Mandruss  19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Another user has removed the invalid refname. ―Mandruss  04:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey signature[edit]

Hello. I fixed your signature at the recent Survey on the talk page for "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections". Here is the diff. I just wanted you to know. Ciao. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I could say that I added your signature, more so than fixing it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Sessions[edit]

Jeff Sessions is under discretionary sanctions. One of the remedies clearly says Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. Please self-revert this immediately and obtain consensus on the talk page before reinstating any challenged edits. Politrukki (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

2nd korean war[edit]

Hi Casprings, earlier this month you requested the deleted text of 2nd Korean War. As you may have noticed, I'm not really active on Wikipedia anymore, so I'm sorry about the delay. The full text of the content was:

Could there be a second Korean War?

Most likely the chances of of a 2nd Korean War is a 5 in 6. It is most likely going to happen because there has been a lot of tension between North and South Korea since the cease fire agreement in 1953. There has been Artillery strikes against South Korea and The Cheneon has been sunk highlighting the tension that persists in the region.

(attribute to User:Rich7851)

There really doesn't seem to be anything that can be salvaged from that to me. A WWIII-style article doesn't sound like a good idea to me. I doubt sufficient source material exists to work out an article in that style, and keeping the current material together in the article on the North-South Korea Relations article still sounds like the best option to me. You're welcome to disagree and try for it anyway of course. With the current situation around North Korea being highly politically sensitive, I'd strongly urge you to stay away from that completely, at least until things calm down a bit. It doesn't tend to make for a fun editing environment. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Transclusion of RFC on Russian Interference Opening - Conclusion versus accused[edit]

I just realized I deleted something you had added. Sorry about that. Since it's a transclusion, we can't work on it anyway. If you want us to resume that thread, please find the original and actually move (or copy) it to the talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Donald Trump Leaking Classified Information to Russia[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Donald Trump Leaking Classified Information to Russia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTNEWS

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. reddogsix (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Donald Trump Leaking Classified Information to Russia for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Trump Leaking Classified Information to Russia 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/Donald Trump Leaking Classified Information to Russia 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. reddogsix (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

DS violation[edit]

Dear Casprings, with this edit you have violated the DS provision that forbids reinstating a challenged edit before reaching talk page consensus. Please be more careful when editing those controversial topics. — JFG talk 03:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

ANI and AE[edit]

FYI, I have mentioned some editing of yours at ANI, but subsequently withdrew the matter from ANI because it is more a matter for Arbitration Enforcement. This regards the article Dismissal of James Comey. For more information about discretionary sanctions, please see the notice above at your user talk page. Discretionary sanctions require compliance with all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

You deleted this:

References

According to WP:BLP, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." I also note another Wikipedia policy: WP:UNRESPONSIVE, which says "Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary." Your deletion was unaccompanied by any edit summary, much less any discussion at the article talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Extra move unhelpful[edit]

Hi Casprings, your extra move of the page here[1] was not discussed compared to prior consensus, is breaking the AfD listing and the edit notice, and I'm not going to fix it all a third time. I will revert; please open a formal move request if you want to change the title again. — JFG talk 11:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
For creation of new article, Donald Trump disclosure of classified information to Russia.

Great job. Sagecandor (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Have a look[edit]

Great America Committee -- Have a look, see if you can find more sources? Sagecandor (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor I will put it in my watch list. Pretty interesting when it was created. Casprings (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Seth Rich[edit]

I undid your move here. Someone else had suggested a different move on the talk page, and given how controversial this topic is, it became clear from that conversation that a formal requested move was necessary. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg 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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

TonyBallioni (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: the Murder of Seth Rich. Just letting you know it is currently under BLP discretionary sanctions. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Be aware that Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia is under a discretionary sanction that forbids editors from reinstating an edit which has been removed until consensus is reached. Your edit here violated that. Please be careful in the future. ~ Rob13Talk 03:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Add to intro but not body ?[edit]

[2] ?

Added to intro but not body?

When you do stuff like that, can you first add new additions to the body text, and then to the intro, after that?

Instead of the other way around? Sagecandor (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Report: Russia Launched Cyberattack On Voting Vendor Ahead Of Election[edit]

  1. Cole, Matthew; Esposito, Richard; Biddle, Sam; Grim, Ryan (June 5, 2017), "Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election", The Intercept, retrieved June 6, 2017
  2. Fessler, Pam; Ewing, Philip (June 5, 2017), "Report: Russia Launched Cyberattack On Voting Vendor Ahead Of Election", National Public Radio, retrieved June 6, 2017
  3. Mathis-Lilley, Ben (June 5, 2017), "Leaked NSA Report Says Russian Hackers Targeted Voter Registration Officials in November 2016", Slate, retrieved June 6, 2017
  4. Weissman, Cale Guthrie (June 5, 2017), "Leaked NSA report finds Russian hacking of U.S. voting machine companies and election officials", Fast Company, retrieved June 6, 2017
  5. Shabad, Rebecca (June 5, 2017), "NSA report indicates Russian cyberattack against U.S. voting software vendor last August", KPAX-TV, CBS News, retrieved June 6, 2017
  6. Quigley, Aidan (June 5, 2017), "Who won the election? NSA report suggests Russia might have hacked voting system", Newsweek, retrieved June 6, 2017
  7. Dreyfuss, Ben (June 5, 2017), "The Intercept Discloses Top-Secret NSA Document on Russia Hacking Aimed at US Voting System", Mother Jones, retrieved June 6, 2017
  8. Kilgore, Ed (June 5, 2017), "Leaked NSA Report Suggests Russian Hacking Could Have Affected Election Day Itself", New York Magazine, retrieved June 6, 2017
  9. Rozsa, Matthew (June 5, 2017), "Russia attempted to hack US voting software days before election: NSA document", Salon, retrieved June 6, 2017
  10. Bertrand, Natasha (June 5, 2017), "Top-secret NSA report: Russian hackers tried to breach US voting systems days before the election", Business Insider, retrieved June 6, 2017
  11. "Breached - NSA: Russian Hackers Targeted U.S. Election Officials", The Daily Beast, June 5, 2017, retrieved June 6, 2017
  12. Ng, Alfred (June 5, 2017), "NSA report discloses Russian hacking days before US election", CNET News, retrieved June 6, 2017
  13. Gallagher, Sean (June 5, 2017), "Leaked NSA report says Russians tried to hack state election officials", Ars Technica, retrieved June 6, 2017
  14. Mindock, Clark (June 5, 2017), "Russian hackers tried to hack US voting software days before election, leaked NSA document suggests", The Independent, retrieved June 6, 2017
  15. Smith, David; Swaine, Jon (June 5, 2017), "Russian agents hacked US voting system manufacturer before US election – report", The Guardian, retrieved June 6, 2017
  16. Dellinger, AJ (June 5, 2017), "Did Russia Hack U.S. Election? NSA Details Attempts To Compromise Election Systems, Report Says", International Business Times, retrieved June 6, 2017
  17. Uchill, Joe (June 5, 2017), "Report: Russians hacked US voting systems maker just before election", The Hill, retrieved June 6, 2017
  18. Kosoff, Maya (June 5, 2017), "Russian military intelligence may have tried to hack U.S. voting system", Vanity Fair, retrieved June 6, 2017
  19. Pierce, Charles P. (June 5, 2017), "Why Would Russia Stop at 'Influence' When They Could Hack Directly?", Esquire, retrieved June 6, 2017
  20. Vara, Shannon (June 5, 2017), "Report: Russians targeted U.S. election officials before election", Axios, retrieved June 6, 2017
  21. Coldewey, Devin (June 5, 2017), "Leaked NSA report names Russia in pre-election hacks, contradicting Putin's claims of innocence", TechCrunch, retrieved June 6, 2017

New topic.

Might this merit its own Wikipedia article? Sagecandor (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me, but...[edit]

Forgive me, but, as a courtesy, could you please confirm that the comments, at the AFD you started on Reality Winner, from 77.66.12.7, are not from you?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Christopher A. Wray[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Christopher A. Wray has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Ochib (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey testimony[edit]

Not sure of a title yet.

Might this be an article? Sagecandor (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference 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/Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference 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. — JFG talk 19:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_Trump's_Russian_Investigation_Interference. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donald_Trump's_Russian_Investigation_Interference. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Legacypac (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac, "Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page" is not true. This is a sub-topic within that meta-topic, and the sub-topic deserves to be developed. Speedy deletion is not proper. Just let the deletion discussion proceed. Please strike this section. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Please use edit summaries, especially for anything not minor, such as this. I try to keep mine at 100%. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference. Since you had some involvement with the Donald Trump's Russian Investigation Interference redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Go the normal route and get what you want.[edit]

I think your best bet to finally get a separate sub-article (Obstruction of justice investigation of Donald Trump) would be to take all that content and include it in this section #Obstruction of justice investigation. That would create the undue weight situation which justifies and requires a sub-article. That's the normal sequence.

Even if your current article were to be deleted at the AfD, it could be recreated. It deserves it, but currently there's lots of opposition. By going the normal route, you prove its legitimacy as a stand alone sub-article.

Also please comment here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Saved for you[edit]

In case you might need this, I saved it: User:BullRangifer/Donald Trump's Alleged Interference in Russian Investigation -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump[edit]

Hello, the change you made to the Donald Trump article removed the section heading for "Family and personal life" [3]. I replaced that part, just a heads up. Have a great day! PackMecEng (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

MRI head side.jpg Great Tidbits Didn't Know Before
For a new tidbit about the Substitute Amendment that is very interesting. Smghz (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2016 Trump Tower Meeting listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect July 2016 Trump Tower Meeting. Since you had some involvement with the July 2016 Trump Tower Meeting redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mattflaschen - Talk 02:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

TTAAC[edit]

I think the place to discuss this user is on Sandstein's talk page. During his ban, TTAAC engaged in personal attacks, sockpuppetry, and violations of the ban. I think his appeal to Sandstein was misleading at best. We've already lost many good editors due to the failure of Admins to stop the POV disruption on the politics pages, and even his reply to you on his talk suggests that he's far from "over" the poisonous mindset that led to his sanction. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Do you have some links or diffs to show that?Casprings (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
There's the rub. Normal folks don't keep dossiers on bad behaving editors. But I'll have a look. He socked right after he was TBANNED then he was blocked for socking but with nobody paying enough attention to track the nonsense he returned to editing, etc etc. Of course the "I don't edit politics" bit is exactly what he said on one of his threads at AE or some other occasion when Admins were scrutinizing his editing. I forget. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

97.98.86.66 at ANI[edit]

[4] Darmokand (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your comments at Whataboutism. You bring some sense to those who want to engage in violating WP:No original research. Sagecandor (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Ike Kaveladze for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ike Kaveladze 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/Ike Kaveladze 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. — JFG talk 07:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

1RR[edit]

Dear Casprings, I understand that you are contesting the merge of Comey memos into Dismissal of James Comey, but in the process of reverting to the pre-merge version, you have unwittingly violated the 1RR restriction in place at Dismissal of James Comey, with this edit. This is a courtesy message allowing you to self-revert. Thanks, — JFG talk 13:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

And FYI, I have sent Comey memos to AfD per WP:CFORK. — JFG talk 13:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Second Korean War[edit]

Merge-arrows.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing—Second Korean War—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. PackMecEng (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, since you did not create the article, you can contest the speedy deletion by simply clicking the blue box. – S. Rich (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Srich32977: I did. It just takes you to edit the talk page with a preloaded template?Casprings (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Roy Moore teenager sexual assault and harassment scandal for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roy Moore teenager sexual assault and harassment scandal 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/Roy Moore teenager sexual assault and harassment scandal 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Hello, Casprings.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Casprings. 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)

New Page Reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Casprings. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Casprings, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

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)

Your reversion at Trump campaign–Russian meetings[edit]

You have violated the consensus required restriction at Trump campaign–Russian meetings with your last edit. Unless you can link me to the established consensus for your addition of challenged material, you need to undo your edit to the article. The current page restriction in effect reads: You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation! Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

You have 10 minutes. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating the sanctions already in place, specifically you did not get the required consensus before restoring challenged material on the page Trump campaign–Russian meetings, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

[[Unblock|I was blocked for 24 hours for a revert I made. I fully understand how hard it is to police these pages. I saw an edit by another editor that said it was removing an overlinkage of people. When I looked at the edit, I saw a removal of the material not if the wiki link. With that, I thought the edit was wrong and reverted. I logged off once I made the edit.

I would have certainly reverted. User Coffee gave me 10 minute warning. I did not see this. I thought I was making a 1rr edit and was not in violation of any rules.

Again, I am sorry for any violation and will stay alert in efforcement changes. I would ask for the block to be reversed.

I will lift the block since I fully trust your explanation is true. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility barnstar.png The Civility Barnstar
For being unbelievably civil in your response to a frustrating situation here in our community of volunteers (the irony of the beverage in this barnstar is not lost on me). 172.56.21.117 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive[edit]

Hello Casprings, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

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)

Nomination of Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations 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/Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations 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. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Conor Lamb Deletion[edit]

I would like to reopen the debate about the deletion of the page. Unfortunately, I am a novice at Wikipedia.

Conor Lamb easily meets the meet the primary criteria of notability of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". He has had articles written about him in Politico, Washington Post, New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2018/01/17/us/politics/18dc-campaign3.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/11/trump-special-election-pennsylvania-pittsburgh-336502

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/rural-democrats-left-for-dead-see-an-opening-in-pennsylvania/2017/11/21/b66af814-cc4e-11e7-b0cf-7689a9f2d84e_story.html?utm_term=.b375c7607f8a

There is also an inner contradiction that should be reviewed. If the election is notable enough to warrant its own article. All the candidates in the election are also notable persons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania%27s_18th_congressional_district_special_election,_2018 Quigley david (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Quigley david (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Dossier contents draft[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BullRangifer/Dossier_contents_(draft)

Feel free to comment and provide suggestions for improvement there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Nunes memo listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nunes memo. Since you had some involvement with the Nunes memo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 333-blue at 01:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of ReleaseTheMemo for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ReleaseTheMemo 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/ReleaseTheMemo 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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Nunes memo for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nunes memo 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/Nunes memo 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. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump-Russia dossier[edit]

Looks like this edit deleted SPECIFICO's edit. PackMecEng (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Casprings, I see you commented, but didn't !vote. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Nunes memo[edit]

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/04/trump-twitter-russians-release-the-memo-216935. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Not always. Fair use quoting is allowed, and that law has a lot of elasticity in it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Casprings, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
  • We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

  • We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
  • Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections[edit]

Hello, Casprings. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, I will leave it up to you, and not nominate the article at AfD. (Looks like someone else already has though.) I just wanted to save you from doing a lot of work on an article that may well be deleted. I have tagged the article for WikiProjects, and assessed it as a stub. Read through WP:CRYSTAL carefully and make sure that it avoids it prepare your case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections 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/Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections 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. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Meh[edit]

I am not sure how you got the idea that that RfC should be in the "math, science and technology" category. I certainly know that's not the kind of things I subscribed to Legobot for. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hiral Tipirneni[edit]

That political candidate doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Dude. I said please don't. WP:BRD. You were bold, I reverted, it should be discussed. The election is notable, not the candidate. And publications nationwide running the same story about her winning the nomination are not enough to establish notability. Please undo your edit, and we can discuss this with the community, without an AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I think this is the same discussion as with Conor Lamb, before he won. I still think a pages justified.Casprings (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10[edit]

Hello Casprings, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

  • Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

  • While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of FBI raid of Michael Cohen's Office for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article FBI raid of Michael Cohen's Office 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/FBI raid of Michael Cohen's Office 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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

FBI raid of Michael Cohen's Office listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect FBI raid of Michael Cohen's Office. Since you had some involvement with the FBI raid of Michael Cohen's Office redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

AE[edit]

I know it's a nuisance, and you've already done a lot of work to prepare your recent AE complaint, but I think that it's necessary to notify or ping the participants in the recent AN thread that was closed in favor of AE. Most editors do not watch AE and few may have realized you would proceed to do the work necessary to post there. I do hope that the Admins there are prepared to enforce the rules for that page. Recently, AE threads have become rather more ANI-like and the AE rules are clearly intended to promote more focused, evidence-based presentations for the Admin panel. One would hope it's not necessary to litigate the nature of consensus and talk page guidelines when you've provided documentary evidence of breaches. SPECIFICO talk 11:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018[edit]

Hello Casprings, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

  • WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 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.

Deletion tags

  • Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

  • A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. 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.

Editathons

  • There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

  • Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

  • The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

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, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

  • Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
  • The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive[edit]

Hello Casprings, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

  • As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
  • Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 100 review coin, 250 review coin, 500 review coin, 1000 review certificate.
  • Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018[edit]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hello Casprings, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules
  • New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
  • Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
  • Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
Editathons
  • Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
The Signpost
  • The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Danny O'Connor (Ohio politician) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Danny O'Connor (Ohio politician) 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/Danny O'Connor (Ohio politician) 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. Marquardtika (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notification - American Politics[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svgThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The bureaucratic notification, as the previous one was >12 months ago. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018[edit]

Hello Casprings, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news
As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
Other
Moving to Draft and Page Mover
  • Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
  • If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
  • Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
  • The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
  • The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

  • Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
  • In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
  • MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
  • User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
  • User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
  • User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
  • User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
  • User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Christine Blasey Ford[edit]

Thank you for creating Christine Blasey Ford on Sept. 17, and for your 15 edits thereafter and 29 edits at Talk:Christine Blasey Ford. It's been exciting for me to participate in the development of this entry, and to see that it has attracted 212,410 pageviews in just two days. KalHolmann (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for the chuckle [5]. Cheers. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For taking the initiative to research and create the page on Christine Blasey Ford. Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

GA nomination for Christine Blasey[edit]

I think Christine Blasey Ford may fail the stability criterion of WP:GACR. You may want to consider nominating the article later when it's no longer subject to frequent, major changes. feminist (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice work on Christine Blasey Ford[edit]

Million award logo.svg Million-views barnstar
Thank you for creating and expanding the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018[edit]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Casprings, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal
Project updates
  • ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
  • There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
New scripts

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018[edit]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Casprings,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
  • Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Casprings. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Christine Blasey Ford[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Christine Blasey Ford you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Christine Blasey Ford[edit]

The article Christine Blasey Ford you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Christine Blasey Ford for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Danny O'Connor (Ohio politician) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Danny O'Connor (Ohio politician) 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/Danny O'Connor (Ohio politician) (2nd nomination) 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. Marquardtika (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018[edit]

Hello Casprings,

Reviewer of the Year
New page reviewer of the year cup.svg

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.


Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.


Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.


If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Casprings,

News
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)

NPR Newsletter No.18[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Casprings,

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
Discussions of interest

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)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Casprings,

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)

Your GA nomination of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vfrickey -- Vfrickey (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections[edit]

The article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vfrickey -- Vfrickey (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Hello Casprings,

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)