Thanks for taking the issue to ANI. I suspected the nominations as retaliation, but wasn't sure what to do about it. Is there anything else I can do to support you in this? - thanks again - Epinoia (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Nope that's fine I'm waiting to hear back from Bbb23. I'll ping you if necessary. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Just as a matter of interest, is the statement "the glosters had more battle honours than any other regiment" strictly true? I looked this up when I was developing the Glosters article, and found a Daily Telegraph article which states that the Queen's Lancashire Regiment "has more battle honours than any other Army regiment." On re-reading the source for the Glosters' claim ("No other line regiment carried more Battle Honours on its Colours...", Daniell p. 410), I realised it was qualified in two ways: firstly as battle honours carried on the colours (i.e. the possibility that other regiments had more battle honours but did not display them on their colours); and secondly, in comparison to line regiments (i.e. that there are guards or cavalry regiments that have more battle honours). Or did the Telegraph get it wrong? Factotem (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)