User talk:JBchrch/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of minority governors and lieutenant governors in the United States on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, JBchrch. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Rowling RfC

I can't respond to you at A. C. Santacruz's User Talk page because I've been banned from it, apparently for the comments you are responding to. I'm aware that users are directed to use RfCs as a form of dispute resolution but WP:DRR, the page you link, to has "All content and conduct issues should be discussed first at the talk page" [bold in original]. So far as I can see, this user wasn't in dispute and has made no content contributions to the Rowling article at all; their first edit was to create an RfC.[1] My concern is a pattern of edits acting as a kind of ersatz admin, which are amplifying drama here and elsewhere - this kind of thing formerly garnered a ban from ANI for this user. Alexbrn (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I don't disagree with you on the specifics of this case (and its broader context), as I have expressed in very friendly terms here. My comment was more responding to the general statement that there is a general growing problem on Wikipedia of editors (especially new ones) seeing RfCs as quasi-legal ways of "settling cases". I was a new user not that long ago, and honestly that's pretty much the impression I got from navigating the different pages about the dispute resolution processes. It's only later than I realized that consensus-building and dispute resolution are much more fluid and open-ended processes, with RfCs being only one component, and a pretty extreme one at that. JBchrch talk 17:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah - there's been some (inconclusive) discussion about possible improvement at WT:RFC#Suggestions for RfC improvement based on the experiences a regular editor. Alexbrn (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Thanks for the link. I think that it's probably one of these things that will only be solved through minor incremental changes rather than sweeping proposals. JBchrch talk 17:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of political parties in Italy on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oleg Kharuk

Hi @JBchrch, I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oleg Kharuk. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Eric Zemmour

Thanks for this recent run of edits at Eric Zemmour; dropping a lot of primary source material and insufficiently sourced content, dropping the POV section on Camus, fixing translations ('panelist', etc.) and other improvements. Keep up the good work! Mathglot (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Mathglot! I appreciate it. JBchrch talk 22:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead in "Eric Zemmour" article

Hello JBchrch, I have been stunned that you made such changes in the lead, following the declaration of candidacy, and after consensus had been built for a while on the previous version (without discussing them; whereas all previous changes were carefully discussed). Especially when you "justified" them by a personal opinion, such as "Changed lead to tone down what I perceived to be a promotional tone in favor of Zemmour" ( related tot the quote of the NYT).
I personally perceive differently; and the NYT is not seen by anyone to be in favour of Zemmour or his ideas.
I expect that you will help me in building a reasonable discussion in the talk page for any change you might see fit, BEFORE making them. For that purpose, I have created a dedicated section to the lead, in the talk page. Feel free to add any paragraph for any topic you wish.
And let us build consensus, not impose versions, also as PER WP:BALANCE, which was greatly destroyed but all recent changes in the lead (not only yours, I must admit). Cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Emigré55: A large amount of work was done yesterday on the article. The collective work (and rework) allowed us to identify some sort of consensus around what the lead (among others) should say: on consensus through editing see WP:EDITCON. There is generally no expectation on Wikipedia that any change be discussed on the talk page prior to them being implemented: see WP:BOLD. At this stage, it is now your WP:ONUS to argue in favor of whichever changes you want to see, and obtain consensus for them in the talk page. JBchrch talk 17:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with you. And I have in any case built in the talk page the frame for the discussion, (feel free to add paragraphs on other issues) on all issues on which you wish to see open. Previous consensus on the lead was patiently and over a long period of time built with many other editors, which should not be ignored within only 12/24 hours.--Emigré55 (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

You are free to disagree with me, but nothing has been done over the last 24 hours—and specifically over the last 2 hours—that contradicts policy. Consensus can change, and Wikipedia does not offer stronger protection against long-standing consensus. A good example of this is when a previously suboptimal article (and I'm not saying that this is a one) suddenly gains a wider audience: a lot of long-standing consensus can be suddenly overturned pretty quickly, in complete compliance with policy. JBchrch talk 18:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no wider audience in this article, as you know. Only you and 2 other regular contributor have decided to suddenly change the lead, unilaterally, and destroyed the balance of it. Even the neutral wording which had been carefully and peacefully discussed. Some here have clearly a political agenda, rather than the real will to build a neutral encyclopaedia. Very disappointing....Is this your case?? --Emigré55 (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you questioning my good faith? JBchrch talk 18:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation in the November 2021 New Pages Patrol drive

		The Patroller's Barnstar
		For reviewing at least 100 articles during the drive.

Thank you for reviewing or re-reviewing 125 articles, which helped contribute to an overall 1276-article reduction in the backlog during the drive. (t · c) buidhe 12:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market

The article September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Zemmour section header

Hi JBchrch, any special reason you changed the section title from what it was to 'French State'? That's a bit of a dicey choice (especially with a capital 'S'), as that was the official name of France during the Vichy period in WW2. More common terms like 'Vichy regime' became popular later and is the name of our article now, but at the time, that was the official name (see Vichy regime#Terminology), and "French State" still redirects there. English scholarship is not so skittish about using this term in other contexts as the French are about using État français (maybe because the French can't distinguish the generic meaning from the country name as English can using a capital letter?) so it's probably fine to keep it, but I'd lowercase the 'S' at least if you decide to keep that term. Mathglot (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Ah yes, you're right. And I'm supposed to know better. I guess it was probably a unfortunate Gallicism to describe his position on l'État. Will revert myself and think of something better. JBchrch talk 19:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that link; I didn't realize he had made that claim, but I'm not surprised, either, given the rest of his ideology. Mathglot (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit war without breaking the 3RR clause closure

20:59, December 8, 2021 - «‎Edit war without breaking the 3RR clause: Early close per WP:SNOW. After 2 days of discussion and 10 !votes, there is unanimous opposition to the proposal.»

@JBchrch: WP:SNOW? Well look, when you WP:CLOSE discussion, you don't simply count WP:!VOTEs. This is wrong approach. Instead, you closely scrutinize what respondents said and whether they are talking about actual proposal. You obviosly didn't do that because summary has little useful information. About 7 out of 10 responses were making misleading assumptions that I propose to repeal entire WP:WAR (e.g. [DEC 8, 2021] (amended on [11:21, DEC 8, 2021]), [20:45, DEC 6, 2021] ← clearly fails to see conflict between the clause & Content). That's not the case. I strongly encourage you to read WP:SNOW#A_cautionary_note before closing anything under pretext of WP:SNOW. I'm going to reopen the RfC to give more time to less superficial editors to recognize the actual issue (some actually did). There is no WP:DEADLINE. Just as a side note, please refrain from making "speedy" closures in the future even if the outcome appears to be "crystal clear". I will allow the RfC to dangle for a while.AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alexander Davronov. Your challenge involves a two-pronged response:

1. Was there consensus to oppose the proposal? The answer is yes. I do not see that participants misunderstood your proposal. They argued that the highlighted paragraph served a useful purpose as part of the EW policy and oppose the proposed reliance on WP:DIS for edit warring behavior that does not break 3RR. Opposition was unanimous: the !vote count was 9/9, with all the !votes being casted by established editors.
2. Was the WP:SNOW close justified? The answer is yes. Within 48 hours, the proposal had attracted 9 oppose !votes and no support !vote. Considering the venue on which the discussion took place (WP:VPP) and the fact that the proposal involved amending the lead of a policy, this was a clear indication that the proposal had no chance of being accepted by the community. I also note that a SNOW close was also suggested by Colin and Bakkster Man.

Finally, I would just note that please refrain from making "speedy" closures in the future even if the outcome appears to be "crystal clear" seems inconsistent with WP:NOTBURO. JBchrch talk 15:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Still counting heads and votes? Alright. I've linked this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure of Edit war without breaking the 3RR clause. Feel free to express your opinion. Please be brief. Regards. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lakhimpur Kheri violence on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

French criminal law and préalable légal

Thanks for this edit at the Draft; a definite improvement. I have some question about precedent ⟶ basis; I did't like precedent when I put it there, but I was really struggling with it; maybe prerequisite, but even that is not quite right. You still might be right about basis, but I found I had to go deeper into French law about this, and the translation hinges on the meaning of préalable légal, which I've been following all over the internet and French legal books. (If you decide to go down that route, beware of *several* Wikipedia mirror sites, some of which are printed books in French logged in Google books.) Our article on Nulla poena sine lege is relevant, but not decisive; but I never heard of it before doing this research, and was glad to learn of it. It's been harder than I thought it would be, to find a stand-alone definition; my best resource so far is page 30, here.

Maybe 'legal basis' is okay after all, especially for an English-speaking audience, but from what I understand so far, it's a bit more specific than that; there has to be a specific text somewhere in the written law that applies to this specific case, that "clearly and precisely" defines a transgression, that the events performed by the perpetrator corresponds to. That's the first of three elements that the prosecutor must have, before initiating legal proceedings (the other two being the material and moral elements). Maybe "legal basis" is enough, especially if we add an explanatory note. This is turning out to be a really interesting article and research project, and it's going to have dozens of {{ill}} red links (a good thing, imho) which illuminates an entire sector of notable topics missing in en-wiki, just waiting to be picked off by interested translator-editors. Anyway, I'm still gathering my sources about préalable légal, before I figure out what to do with it. I always knew, second-hand, that Napoleonic law was different from Common law, but now I'm really starting to see how. It's really interesting! Mathglot (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot. We have the same understanding of the substantive issues at hand. The main issue is that legal precedent is a terminology that refers to case law and the doctrine of stare decisis. This is not the meaning of the French text. As Matthias 2007 says on page 30 "Il doit, avant tout, prouver le préalable légal de l'infraction pénale, c'est-à-dire viser le texte d'incrimination sur lequel reposent les poursuites." We can probably find a better translation than "legal basis" though. I guess the best way to find it is simply to find the word designating the thing on which a criminal sanction should be based per Nulla poena sine lege. And yes, comparing different legal traditions is always fascinating and also very strange... JBchrch talk 15:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Exactly (re the "thing"); various terms were running through my head, none of which I liked because they generally meant something related, but not the "thing", like, case law, or legal text, or law, or code, or article, or item; we want the generic term for any given article of the code, as long as it's the one that covers the situation (and was there before the events), so how do we say that in just a word or two? If we can't find something, maybe this is another case of leave-it-in-French, and follow it with an explanatory note. I don't think there's enough there for an entire article about it, because then we could just leave the French name and hyperlink it; but even fr-wiki doesn't have a specific article for it, just a redirect (fr:préalable légal). Mathglot (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: It's getting late here so I will only expand on this tomorrow but we might find an answer in the following document, since nulla poena sine lege is part of the European Convention on Human Rights [2]. JBchrch talk 06:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Wait, you mean, you put stuff like sleep, and food, and other strictly personal concerns ahead of responding to Wikipedia editors' comments? I don't see where this is allowed in policies or guidelines; can you provide me a link of one where it does? I tried WP:BEDTIME but apparently it never achieved consensus, or got deleted, or something. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

😂😂😂 Laughed out loud with this one! JBchrch talk 15:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald closure

Hi, thanks for closing it, I agree with most of the closing statement except for "Greenwald is not a subject-matter expert for the purposes of WP:SPS." Basically there was one user who said he clearly is not an expert and one (myself) who said that he probably is. I don't think it can be considered a consensus. Alaexis_¿question? 16:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alaexis. Yeah, I guess it's a bit weaker than what I initially judged. I can propose to change it to "rough consensus that he is not a subject-matter expert", as I still think there is rough consensus: no one seems to have affirmed positively that he is a subject-matter expert, and all I see are a few editors hinting that it could maybe be the case. On the other hand, there are several editors who are positive about the fact that he's unreliable per SPS. JBchrch talk 17:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's closer to "There is no consensus whether GG is a subject-matter expert." Most of the editors considered the RfC nonsensical and thus did not opine on the status of GG as an expert for the purposes of SPS. U:Aquillion wrote that he's certainly not one, I wrote that maybe he is and u:Springee wrote that "Greenwald's opinions may or may not be DUE per the typical SPS and exceptions that can apply to subject matter experts." Alaexis_¿question? 18:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Alaexis: Unfortunately, "rough consensus" is as low as I am ready to go, because the uncertain opinion expressed by two editors cannot overcome several clearly expressed opinions that GG is unreliable. "No consensus" would require you and Springee to have expressed in clear terms your opinion that GG is a subject-matter expert. There's another point to consider here (and I'm not intending the following to sound snarky or to sound as if I'm "challenging" or "bluffing you", just expressing a matter of fact): if there was no consensus on whether GG is a subject-matter expert, which is a crucial point of the discussion, then the closing itself was unjustified after such a short period of time. If that is the case, the closing should not be amended, it should be reverted altogether. Again I'm not taunting you, but if you maintain your position, I think you should revert the closing, and I will not revert it back. JBchrch talk 19:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

My comment regarding subject matter experts was generalized and would apply to just about any individual who self publishes. As for this closing, I think it would be fair to say the discussion wasn't really trying to ascertain if he could be considered a subject matter expert with respect to the Biden article content in question. I think most who mentioned it were probably thinking in that context and my feeling is the consensus is he should not be considered one in that context. My view is "not expert" because Greenwald's field is journalism, not political science or what ever would be an expert in the field of potential political maleficence. If the question was if Greenwald is an expert on journalism or The Intercept then I'm more likely to say yes since we would be talking about his profession and the media source he help found. Springee (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, this is my impression too that the discussion wasn't really trying to ascertain his subject-matter expertise. We can disagree on the areas in which he can be considered an expert but I think the best way to describe the consensus would be "Several editors believe that GG cannot be considered a subject-matter expert for the purposes of WP:SPS." This is a formulation that appears frequently on WP:RSP. Alaexis_¿question? 22:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Alaexis: Works for me 👍 JBchrch talk 00:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done [3]. JBchrch talk 00:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Éric Zemmour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RTL.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Trickle-down economics on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for The French Suicide

On 20 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The French Suicide, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to a review from the The New Yorker, The French Suicide largely overstates France's decline? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The French Suicide. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The French Suicide), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 5,729 views (477.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Consideration for portals on the Main Page

Hi JBchrch! I see that the portal removal discussion is still undergoing the close challenge, but as a heads up, I wanted to point you to phab:T293470, where the WMF Desktop Improvements team is trying to figure out where to put the language switching button for main pages in New Vector. It occurs to me that if we clear out the portals links, putting the button there instead might work perfectly. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Sdkb. I think that would be a great idea. Do you want to suggest it in the phab thread, so it's out there? I'm any way keeping it in mind if I can muster the energy to move this thing forward. JBchrch talk 10:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа!

Hello, JBchrch Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
--A.S. Brown (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Thank you so much A.S. Brown! Merry christmas and happy holidays to you too, and best wishes to you and your close ones! ❄️🎅 JBchrch talk 16:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hi JBchrch, I just saw your comment at the RfA and remembered that I have yet to wish you a merry Christmas. I hope you and your loved ones will spend a blessed holiday period! I enjoyed working with you on Lohn Estate this summer; I'm glad to see that Wikipedia has won a long-term editor in you this year. All the best, Modussiccandi (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much Modussiccandi! Merry Christmas and happy holidays to you too, and best wishes for you and your close ones! ❄️🎅 I'm very glad to be here and have a few projects in mind that will keep me occupied, I hope, for the foreseeable future. Thank you again for awarding me my very first GA, and I hope we will be able to work collaboratively on something else very soon! JBchrch talk 17:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Deportivo Lake Mary

Hi, I'm Wikidoge04 and I'm the author of the Deportivo Lake Mary page, after I had created it had been deleted and after I had asked a few times the reasons and after I updated the article with new informations and 'independent references' it continue to be deleted and last time it was you. Please explain to me why the article has been deleted and what can I do to post it without continue this comedy. Thanks for your time. talk 00:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikidoge04, the article was deleted in accordance with the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deportivo Lake Mary, which was publicized on the article for a week. The discussion reached a pretty clear consensus that the subject of this article failed our general notability guideline, so there's not much you can do to have it published again at this point unfortunately. JBchrch talk 23:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes but which general notabilities haven't been respected by me in the article? User_talk:Wikidoge04 01:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wikidoge04: The general notability guideline linked above states that "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Below this statement, you will find details as to what that means. In that specific case, nobody found significant coverage of Deportivo Lake Mary, which means that the club isn't notable for Wikipedia purposes and thus cannot be the subject of an article. This is not necessarily a "mistake" that you did, it's generally a judgment on the topic of the article itself. JBchrch talk 00:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll take that but i don't understand why in this article there are all the problems of non notability, so I will rewrite it in april, when Dep Lake Mary will begin to play in NISA Nation. One last thing, since the images that I uploaded were deleted because I forgot to write the license, can you check please if the last that I have uploaded are all okay and can stay in Wikipedia please (Such as NISA Nation logo, Las Vegas Legends logo, New Jersey Alliance FC logo, ecc...). Again thank for your time and appreciate your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidoge04 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wikidoge04 When you rewrite your article, please consider submitting it through the Articles for creation process, where a volunteer editor will be able to give you feedback on your new article. For the logo, please refer to the instruction I had given to another here. Let me know if you have any other question and happy editing. JBchrch talk 18:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you and good editing as well Wikidoge04 (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

---

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Environmental defenders

Hi, since we're having a few disagreements on the topic of environmental defenders, I just wanted to leave a note that I do appreciate your engagement on this topic and the constructive criticism. I actually struggle a lot with digital interactions in general where tone and body language aren't part of the dialogue, so I just want to be very clear that I appreciate your apparent assumption of good faith, careful wording, and willingness to engage with a complex and important topic. I'm not particularly attached to the outcome of the discussions or the DYK nomination. I mostly see it as an opportunity to prompt important conversations that need to be happening on this platform. So thanks for making that possible. Larataguera (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Larataguera Thank you so much for taking the time to leave this thoughtful message. I had 0 doubts about your approach, and I am glad to know that you did not take my editing and comments as a form of hostility against you. I truly appreciated that we could have a clear and direct discussion about the substantive issues without the need to sugarcoat every little element of disagreement. I also respect your effort to raise questions that are important to you, and I encourage you to continue to do so. See you 'round and happy editing! JBchrch talk 01:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year

JBchrch,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! ~~~~

Thank you so much! Wishing you a most happy 2022! And thank for all your hard work and contributions around here. Best wishes! --A.S. Brown (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Move

Hello, just letting you know that I've moved your page JBchrch/Easy-to-use copy-and-paste archival bots to your userspace (User:JBchrch/Easy-to-use copy-and-paste archival bots) since it seems to be a userspace essay and not an article. Thanks, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah thanks a lot @Giraffer I screwed up on this one. JBchrch talk 16:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Thanks for all your help this year. Hope the holidays have given you plenty of rest and the time spent with others and with yourself has been rewarding. I hope you have a fantastic 2022. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much @A. C. Santacruz! You're welcome, obviously. Happy holidays to you as well and best wishes to you and your close ones! Have a great 2022! JBchrch talk 15:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Koloğlu Holding

Hello JBchrch,

I have added some more detail and cites to Draft:Koloğlu Holding which you draftified. Does that meet your concerns?

If not please could you let me know in more detail what are any remaining problems.

By the way I have no connection with the company and I have written both negative and positive aspects in the article. Please could you confirm you have no conflict of interest either for or against the company. As you may know websites such as Nordic Monitor are blocked from here in Turkey (although I could see the Google snippet to cite it), so as the company has been in the news recently it would be good to have a hopefully unbiased view available to the reading public here from Wikipedia. If you think the article is biased please tell me. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Chidgk1. First of all, I have no COI with this company (for or against). As to the article, I have to admit that I still don't think that the sourcing meets the requirements of WP:SIRS, which calls for in-depth coverage in several reliable sources to establish the notability of corporations. Could you please submit this article through WP:AFC to get a second opinion? JBchrch talk 13:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Tornado

Thank you for the thanks; that was most kind of you! Happy New Year, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You're very welcome @SandyGeorgia! Happy new year to you too! JBchrch talk 23:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot @7&6=thirteen! This reminds me of some good times in Budapest a few years ago. JBchrch talk 17:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Makes me hungry Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Template:Did you know nominations/Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin) "Fools rush in ..." but lawyers do their research first. Apparently you still have a sense of humor. Thanks for your ameliorative assistance. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Four Awarded

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot @Theleekycauldron! JBchrch talk 19:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Sharon Hill deletion

The claim of stonewalling was made at least 8 times recently there by ACS (and supporters). My comment was a reply to that. If my reply on that subject doesn't belong on that Talk page, then it seems unfair that the comments which it was in response to should remain. Rp2006 (talk) Rp2006 (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rp2006 Doing a cmd+F on the talk page, I see only two stonewalling accusations by A. C. Santacruz, to whom your comment was directed. I can understand, though, that being on the receiving end of such accusations is not really conducive to a productive discussion, so I will ask A.C. if she would be open to refraining from labeling your comments as stonewalling again: both your positions are clear by now, and given the state of this whole thing, I don't think it's very useful to level those kinds of accusations anymore. However, Rp, you should also lay off the attacks, as in this comment [4] which really serves no productive purpose. JBchrch talk 21:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I will refrain from labeling his comments as stonewalling in the future. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market

Congratulations, JBchrch! The article you nominated, September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Congrats, your first FA, isn't it? It was educational for me to review the article at FAC. When will it make its main page apperance? September 17, 2022? Any date would work. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is @Kavyansh.Singh! Thank you very much for your message and thanks again for your thorough review. Yes, I'm definitely going to submit it for September 17! JBchrch talk 19:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Might be worth noting it on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh Thanks a lot for the advice! It took some negotiation and intrigue but I got the spot! JBchrch talk 17:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC#2 on portals

Greetings, JBchrch. You might be interested to know that I initiated a new RfC on the Main Page portals. I tried to rephrase the RfC so that it's clear and straight-forward, while, of course, I shall take no further part in it. Though I have no reason to feel my original closure was faulty, I chose to initiate a new RfC in order to help swiftly overcome the current stumble in the process and in view of the frustration expressed by a number of editors as to the original closure. (You might also want to ping the participants in the previous, relevant discussions & RfC's, seeing as I made a pingsty in my previous attempt to do so.) Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@The Gnome Thank you vey much for doing this and for taking the initiative to move the discussion forward. Unfortunately, time is on short supply this week, and I will not have the possibility to take a look at it in detail and to effect the pings with the appropriate level of concentration and carefulness. Just as a note, I don't see any RfC tags on the discussion, so is it possible that the discussion wasn't broadcasted? Thanks again. JBchrch talk 15:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, JBchrch. I'm withdrawing the RfC submission following your remarks and the suggestion of two other participants. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Input sought on the Citadel LLC talk page

Hi JBchrch. I recently replied to your remarks on Talk:Citadel. I brought a few sources that more clearly discuss the distinction between Citadel and Citadel Securities and Ken Griffin’s role in the companies. I would appreciate your feedback as to whether you feel these sources properly and more thoroughly address the matter. Thanks. Amandaatcitadel (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Amandaatcitadel Thank you. I've been pondering it and may lean your way, but I need just a few more days to think it over. You can ping me by the end of next week if I have not added a comment at the Talk:Citadel discussion. JBchrch talk 03:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Amandaatcitadel Moved to support. Thanks. JBchrch talk 01:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi JBchrch. It has been almost two weeks since anyone has posted their opinion about whether Citadel Securities should have its own article. It appears to me that the consensus is to support such a move. I wonder if you could look over the discussion, assess the various views and then determine if the discussion can be closed. I would be much obliged. Thanks, Amandaatcitadel (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Amandaatcitadel, given that this page is monitored to some extent by online forums and that I have participated to the discussion, I will log a closure request at WP:CR so that an independent editor can assess the discussion and close it. JBchrch talk 15:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi JBchrch. Thanks for your time and assistance regarding the splitting of the Citadel Securities page. Now that there is consensus to split, can you please advise on how to proceed? As a reminder, a version of the article already exists here in my user space.Amandaatcitadel (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Amandaatcitadel Thanks -- It's on the back of my mind, and I'll do it sometime soon. You can send me a reminder in about 2-3 weeks if it hasn't been done by then. JBchrch talk 22:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For this, I do thank you. For my part, I realise, increasingly, that I should respond to criticism better, less instinctively defensive, and I apologise for being rude to you on my talk. Where you are, of course, welcome anytime 🍻☕️ SN54129 13:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much Serial! And no worries at all of course. I'm really happy that we can be on good terms. JBchrch talk 16:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm the editor I am today in large part thanks to your guidance during the zemmour dispute, so I thought I'd re-emphasize my gratitude and appreciation for you. I hope you enjoyed the weekend ^u^ A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this kind message @A. C. Santacruz. You're very welcome, and I'm glad if I have helped you. JBchrch talk 04:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Department of Finance

Regarding WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#Department of Finance which you closed, what did you think about my suggestion about all the related redirects? Jay (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Jay, I didn't include anything about that in the closure because it had not received !votes or feedback, but it seems to me like your suggestion would be consistent with the consensus. JBchrch talk 15:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It no feedback is the reason, the suggestion was there for only 3 days before you closed it. Maybe leave it there for a few more days, and let another admin close it. Jay (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jay I think that the discussion had reached a consensus after a week, so I respectfully disagree. But if you think I should undo my close, then I will. Just please confirm that it's what you want me to do. JBchrch talk 05:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Since you disagree, I won't push it. Can you add a line about the suggestion in the close statement? Jay (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jay Sure. Would "Similar redirects may be boldly retargeted there as well" work? JBchrch talk 13:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Afd rationale

Your argument is specious regarding dab pages for descriptive terms. Joker contains characters named Joker or The Joker, not those described as jokers, e.g. Robin Williams. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend That's not a good comparison because, as multiple editors have said, reliable sources call these events Russo-German Wars. The best argument you could have made was that the page should be turned into a redirect to Eastern Front (World War II) because it's what the term is mostly used to designate, but that's not the discussion we were having. This is all very different from listing banana at Fruit (disambiguation), and I agree that using DABs this way would not work. The reason I brought up Joker, however, is because you said that DAB pages are used only to disambiguate titles and this I disagree with. JBchrch talk 14:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

What? Joker is the name/title of various characters. I have no dispute with that. Those entries, however, aren't descriptions period, end of story.

As for the Afd decision, that's just wrong, but that's another issue. MOS:DABMENTION is violated: the term doesn't appear in Eastern Front (World War I) at all and only once in Eastern Front (World War II), as the title of a book, which doesn't equate the two. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	On April Fool's Day, it is good to memorialize your contribution to Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin) on the main page. Your words of informed wisdom at the nomination page helped make it possible. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

New article Marcelo Kohen

Hi JBchrch. Thank you for rating the page I created. I am new here, so I apologise for my ignorance. I was wondering whether the fact that you rated as "start" (rather than draft) an article that has not yet been approved might have an impact in the review process. Relatedly —and, again, I am not sure if this should be asked in this way—, but could you assess my submission? Thank you. Pugliese23 (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Pugliese23 and thank you for your message. The changes I've made were mostly formal and cosmetic and do not prejudge the review that will be made by the people at WP:AFC in due course. I personally do not conduct such reviews so I cannot review your submission. What I can tell you is that they will assess the article in light of WP:NACADEMIC, and that they will most probably ask whether you are related to Marcelo Kohen or are compensated for your work, since the article currently reads as promotional. If that is the case, you should follow the rules at WP:COI. Feel free to let me know if you have questions about WP:COI or compensated editing since I have some experience in that area. JBchrch talk 20:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much JBchrch for your kind and prompt response! That is not the case at all: I am an international lawyer and researcher and this is the first of a number of articles that I want to create for significant personalities that are presently missing in Wikipedia — a first attempt of sorts. I didn't intend for it to look promotional (hence all the references) but would be happy to adjust. I'm just new and learning — and you've helped, so I'm most grateful. All the best. Pugliese23 (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, JBchrch. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Creation of page "Citadel Securities"

Hi JBchrch. Just wanted to follow up as you suggested in order split the Citadel Securities page. Included in this gentle reminder is the fact that there already exists, in my user space, a version of the article which can be moved to main space if you choose. Thanks again for your help. Amandaatcitadel (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Amandaatcitadel, thanks for the reminder. I have not forgotten about this and intend to get back to it some time soon. Thanks for your patience and understanding. JBchrch talk 20:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Amandaatcitadel It's now done, see Citadel Securities. I have rewritten the lead from your draft to make it less marketing-y and more WP:WIKIVOICE-y. Let me know if you see any issues or problems. JBchrch talk 17:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi JBchrch. Thanks for creating the Citadel Securities article and the corresponding edits to the Citadel LLC page and Kenneth C. Griffin's page. For the sake of accuracy, could you please update the final sentence of the Citadel Securities lead to “majority owned” instead of “owned”? Happy to provide sources if you’d like. Amandaatcitadel (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Amandaatcitadel That  Done. JBchrch talk 13:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello JBchrch,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 819 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 859 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Johann Chapoutot

Hello, JBchrch. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Johann Chapoutot, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello JBchrch,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 11144 articles, as of 04:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Johann Chapoutot

Hello, JBchrch. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Johann Chapoutot".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello JBchrch,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers

The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP Award

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2021. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi JBchrch,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 16 September 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The article is a great read. Good job! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article "about a sudden and unexpected problem that affected a critical channel of the world’s financial plumbing one beautiful morning. This channel is called the "overnight repo market" and it involves big institutions trading $1 trillion per day. On September 17, 2019, it clogged up, and no one—from the Wall Street big shots to the Fed’s mathematicians—understood why. This is their story."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

+1 Great work! I remember reviewing this earlier this year. This was one of the few financial articles I did understood! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Greatly enjoyed reading it first time around, also enjoyed it this time. Hope you've been doing well :) — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 15:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Precious

financial events and Swiss places

Thank you for quality articles such as September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market and Lohn Estate, for Meme stock and Penthes Castle, for work in the French Wikipedia and gnomish category fixes, for a stunning image as the focus of your user page, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2760 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much @Gerda Arendt. It's a real honor to knighted in this order :) All the very best. JBchrch talk 11:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Translating French legalese

Hi, JBchrch,

Do you recall this discussion you participated in at Éric Zemmour, which started off about how to translate délit, and which expanded to the question of translating French legal terms generally? This has started me off on a project to improve our coverage of French criminal law, starting with the creation of Draft:French criminal law, now in mainspace, but needing expansion. This was merely the tip of the iceberg, as the topic of French criminal law is vast (see French nav templates: one, two to get an idea of its coverage there). So I created nav template {{French criminal law}} to help organize it (it's full of red links at present), and Draft:Glossary of French criminal law to deal with all the French legal jargon (not yet ready for mainspace). Once the glossary is done, we should be able to churn out new articles relatively quickly from the red links on the Nav template, vastly improving our coverage of this important topic.

In that discussion, you made an offer to help with translation of terms (diff), and if that offer still goes, I'd like to take you up on it. If interested, please reply below. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello JBchrch,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)