If you leave a message on this talk page, I'll respond here. You may want to watch this page to catch the response. Click here for a tutorial in watching pages. Please avoid using talkback messages if you can - if I've messaged you recently I'll either be watching your page or otherwise keeping an eye on it.
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
Recreating a previously deleted article - Diamonds (Lil Peep and iLoveMakonnen album)
Hi, since the article's subject has now released and the article editor UI informed to first contact you, I would like to ask if I should recreate the page? I already have a draft ready in my sandbox that is ready to be improved upon in terms of citations by others and myself. OfficialNikkiMusic (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just did this draft as a courtesy for another user after deleting an earlier revision (see a few threads up). However one small comment, a limited number of citations to things like Twitter can be acceptable for basic facts per WP:BLPPRIMARY, although they can't be used to demonstrate notability. So while it would be nice to replace them with third-party cites, it's not an absolute deal-breaker in my opinion. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 12:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.
At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!
October backlog elimination drive:
A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.
PageTriage code upgrades:
Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.
Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.
If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.
Okay, I fired up this new NPP script. First article I came across was Brimley, Michigan, created as a redirect in 2004 and expanded out to a full article today. Not amazing sourcing, but not obviously problematic enough and at the worst could be reverted back to the redirect, so no maintenance tags required. However, it's already been marked as patrolled, presumably years ago, so it won't fall off the queue. What have I missed here? Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Currently it's not marked as patrolled. If you can see the grey page curation toolbox at the right hand side of the page, you should see that the tick icon is still grey (not green or purple, which indicate reviewed pages). – Joe (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
. Being a "convenience link" doesn't negate the fact that it is an unreliable source. We should never trust some random website which has (incorrectly) copied over the text of a newspaper. Fram (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. Just saw the banner on the top of this page. Feel free to respond when you actually have time. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will have a thorough look when I've got a spare evening, although it might not be for a week or so. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 09:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, I have replied to your reply, in case it didn't land in your inbox. (since you didn't reply to my replies earlier, I'm worried that you didn't get those) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. It's true that this was moved to main space in good faith, by an editor in good standing. But the copyedits made to the article were quite minimal. Wikishovel (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A question that Newyorkbrad touches on in his essay, but doesn't get answered as often as I'd like, is "What was the editor banned for in the first place?" If the ban was due to civility and not playing well with others, deleting a sock puppet's contributions per G5 seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 10:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I certainly don't question DreamRimmer's good faith in the least. It's a short stub about an elected official with adequate referencing. Perhaps they will weigh in on this, to address the question of their opinion being overridden.
That essay by Newyorkbrad is thoughtful and useful, and I'm all for second and third chances myself. But this isn't a case of an editor coming back from a block and making good contributions. WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Sazmancrpo is a serial hoaxer, repeatedly writing about a non-notable businessman using deliberately faked references, and using uncontroversial edits and politician stubs to disguise this. WP:BMB seems written for exactly this sort of case. Wikishovel (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks to Ritchie for pinging me. I have no objection to deleting this article under G5. I believe that articles created by socks should be deleted if they align with the guidelines outlined in WP:G5 to prevent these LTAs from wasting other users' precious time once again. As an admin, you are the best person to make this decision. Thanks! 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 11:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've gone for my suggestion above and redirected to Azad Kashmir Legislative Assembly as an alternative for deletion. DreamRimmer, don't believe any of your time was wasted, you evaluated an article based on its merits in an encyclopedia, and that's what's important. Personally, I think as Wikipedia is a completely voluntary project, you are free to do as much or as little work as you like, and in this case I'm not worried about the five minutes or so I've spent on this. Indeed, I would argue that more time is spent / wasted at NPP looking at good-faith contributions on obscure subjects that cite sources that are not in English or are hard to access, and those are a complete ball-ache. I just can't get excited about sock puppetry investigations and avoid taking part in them. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're absolutely right, but everyone may have a different perspective on these types of issues. Just to clarify, I didn't mean to refer to the last five minutes spent replying here. What I meant is that when articles created by socks are easily kept in the mainspace, it encourages them to create more accounts and write new articles again. This, in turn, leads to various unnecessary discussions, whether in AfD or elsewhere. Therefore, such actions should not be accepted readily, and they should not be allowed to waste the community's time in the future. In short, permitting these LTAs' articles to remain published is like inviting them back into sockpuppetry.
By the way, redirecting this article as ATD is a commendable decision. I hope this explanation makes sense, even though your views may differ on this. Have a great day! 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 12:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]