User talk:Garchy/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Alien Megastructure

If you're going to change the db, please do it properly. A10 is not a valid criterion unless you specify the article. I looked for an article on alien structures and couldn't find one. If I had found one I would have redirected the article rather than asking for the speedy. And please note that I did not call this vandalism, as I made clear on the talk page. WP:G3 refers to "blatant and obvious misinformation" which this appears to be. I have no problem with changing the speedy to a more obviously appropriate one, but I couldn't see what that would be. Meters (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like another user took care of it and redirected it to KIC 8462852 - I should have taken more time and done that myself than simply changing the code in haste, apologies for the confusion. Garchy (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. If I had found that article I would have redirected myself. Meters (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Green Line (MBTA)

The article Green Line (MBTA) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Green Line (MBTA) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Example -- Example (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Bossa nova

Hi I'm Josiah Kok. Sorry for late reply I'm actually new to Wikipedia but few months ago I was reading the bossa nova page. And I realize Francis Lai didn't compose any bossa nova, He was a film score composer. So I dedicated to remove his name from the page. Thank you for telling me about the edit summary. Quick question how do I message anyone? (So can I edit anything on Wikipedia next time ?). Thank Josiah Kok (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Response to your message

I did add reliabale references... please refer to the following text... ==In Christianity== The Holy Bible tells of how the virgin Mary is blessed to believe in the fulfillment of what had been spoken to her by the Lord. In the Holy Gospel, this is described in the book of Luke... specifically Luke 1:44-45 ^[1]... Makaria is translated from the Greek μακαρία^[2]... Jesus Christ's mother is extremely blessed according to these written words. THANK YOU!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.126.225 (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

^ THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright ;© 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica®.
^ THAYER'S GREEK LEXICON, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006, 2011 by Biblesoft, Inc.

Hello @50.76.126.225: - my issue isn't with the fact that you are using the Holy Bible as a reference, but rather that you did not fill out the references correctly. Please refer to WP:CITEHOW for information on citing literature correctly (publisher information, specific year and specific edition, etc.). Thank you! Garchy (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

AIV Helperbot

Regarding your edit summary here, the Helperbot does not remove declined reports.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: thanks for the clarification, I just learned something new! Garchy (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for Paolippe

Thx a lot! --Paolippe (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:Wikihounding

Go wiki hound and wikilawyer somewhere else — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.12.251 (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page comments. Also, spend your time constructively editing and you won't have this problem. Garchy (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guadiaro (town), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cab and A-7. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank You for The Help

I appreciate the help with Martha Mayer Erlebacher page. One of my favorite things about editing Wikipedia is knowing that there are other Wikipedians to help when I get stuck. --KatieBU (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Once a {{prod}} template has been removed - by *anyone* - it is never appropriate to re-add it. Continuing to do so is considered disruptive and it appears that you are edit warring on this article. Toddst1 (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Huh? Did you look at the page history? The user deleted the PROD (actually just reverted it) without address the underlying issues. If you're going to accuse anyone of WP:3RR you may want to alert User:Bjerrebæk. Garchy (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed I did. Referring to other editors as vandals when they are clearly not vandalizing - rather misunderstanding policies - just as you appear to be - falls under the category of WP:NPA. Reporting each other to AIV is just plain bad form. Toddst1 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I certainly haven't attacked any editors, that would be bad form. I reported the user to AIV as they were vandalizing my talk page ~~(and as you will see, they still are...)~~ - I do seem to have mistaken PROD with AfD, hence my frustration with them removing the template. The edit you are pointing out the user is in fact vandalizing my page. Garchy (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope. That's not Wikipedia:Vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. WP:AGF is not optional. You don't have to agree with him/her but you're both going about this the wrong way. Head to the talk page and sort it out. You should withdraw your AIV report. Toddst1 (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Level headed advice - I'll remove the AIV report, not worth wasting the time. I nominated Anne Hellum for afd - not trying to target the page, I just want some form of consensus because I don't think it fits WP:NACADEMICS. No point in pushing the point further. Thanks for the insight. Garchy (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the Feedback

Just wanted to say thanks for the positive feedback on the Sue Austin page I started. It was my first foray into Wikipedia and I'm really hoping to be a regular contributor, especially on the area of disabled artists. JTdisabilityartsonline (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary

I'm not saying what the user did was an overall benefit, but this was by no means vandalism that you reverted. Please don't use that to describe edits that aren't obviously detrimental. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello @SNUGGUMS: - please refer to this users talk page, as this has been an ongoing problem with this user and they have been blocked for this before. They have been asked numerous times to work with other editors on tagging, not on their own mission which goes against the Manual of Style. This user is visibly not here to build an encyclopedia - your point is valid, but since this is a problem user and the issue goes back numerous times this is being dealt with as disruptive editing - as you'll see an admin has already blocked this user. Thank you for your concerns, but please take a full look at each case individually before warning another experienced user about a case they are handling. Garchy (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Distuptive would definitely be a better description, and you do have a valid point. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Northeast megalopolis

You misunderstand me, I wasn't objecting to the assertion that Megalopolis still exists, but to the assertion that it was founded "with the hopes of spanning all of Greece in a massive urban sprawl". – Smyth\^talk 16:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I did misunderstand that. Thanks for clearing it up! Garchy (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Garagepunk66

Who do I speak to to initiate an SPI? 68.232.71.82 (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, to open an SPI case go here [1] - There is a section titled "How to open an investigation". Hope that helps. Garchy (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get right on it! 68.232.71.82 (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Smiley

Sorry about using your time, I know at some point it was part of the rave scene and I just wanted to add an article in without knowing about that source was unreliable. 120.147.37.23 (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@120.147.37.23: No apology needed! I was actually going to write on your Talk page to let you know it can be re-added with another source - I found one that could be considered reputable, so I'll add in a sentence about the rave culture, feel free to modify it as well. Garchy (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation Garchy 120.147.37.23 (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Policing me for not having a citation. :) EditKing666 (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Garchy (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Can you please check your edits for the recent death of Donn Fendler? According to the Bangor Daily News and the Portland Press Herald, he died on Monday, October 10th, not Sunday, October 9th. (The Bangor Daily News makes specific mention at the end of the article that they had previously reported his death as being October 9th but had amended the date. So it appears that an incorrect date was initially published via news outlets).

Sorry I'm not familiar enough with the editing process to do the edits myself.

Thanks. SpacemanSpiff27 (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff27:, thanks for letting me know! You're completely right, all news sources have amended it. I'll go ahead and change it in the article with the proper citation. Garchy (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Garchy. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages 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.

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Jacobi point

Hi, you put a speedy deletion tag on this article about a millisecond after I created it, obviously without doing an actual check on whether it really duplicated some other article. If you take a look at them, you'll see they have nothing in common except the name of the mathematician. I appreciate your enthusiasm as a new reviewer, but please temper your enthusiasm with discretion, by slowing down to be more careful. Thanks. Please remove the speedy deletion tag. Loraof (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Loraof:, I'm flattered you think I'm a new reviewer - we all technically are "new" reviewers since this right has only been out for about 2 weeks now. My apologies for redirecting your page incorrectly, which I in fact did check first (but was obviously incorrect about). I'll replace the CSD. Also, please remember that as soon as an article is placed in the Wikipedia mainspace it is held to the same requirements as all other pages. If you would prefer to work on the article prior to submission you may do so in your sandbox, or you may want to consider placing one of these tags so that other reviewers know it is a work in progress. Garchy (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Foreign domestic price

The reasoning on your PROD notice sounds a lot like WP:A11 to me. Cabayi (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering the same thing, but I didn't want to CSD it unless I was confident - feel free to replace it! Garchy (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI...

Mesh (band) was a WP:CSD#G4. Guy (Help!) 02:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I checked the deletion log but must have missed it was an exact recreation of the xfd. Garchy (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Slideshow source

Hi @Garchy:, you recently reviewed my submission for the increased limits factors article. Could you expand upon what the issue is with a slideshow source in particular? In my view if it's literature from a conference/seminar sponsored by the organization that would be the expert in the topic, that seems reliable? The slideshow would have counted as professional education for credentialed actuaries. https://cas.confex.com/cas/rpms12/webprogram/Session4766.html I'm not completely clear on what it is about this article vs. say the loss development factors article that makes one qualified for publication but not the other. I understand not everything needs an article - just having trouble figuring out the line here. Thanks for you help! -KaJunl (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @KaJunl: thank you for reaching out for help! It looks like the issue is with identifying reliable sources - while PDF's and slideshows may not be a bad idea as external links to content it shouldn't make up the majority of the references in the article. Are there more scholarly writings or a scientific journal entry that mentions this? I just don't see enough in the article yet to qualify as a standalone article, but through a web search I can see the potential for more. In this link [2] there are 5 references at the end to books that may help - remember, books can be used for references on Wikipedia as well! Happy editing :) Garchy (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Cecil Yarwood

My article was rejected because I cited the subject's research in the context of describing his research. Dr. Cecil Yarwood is listed under the Wikipedia article List of Mycologists, I'm describing his work. If I delete the citations, it would be plagiarism. The articles cited are peer reviewed scientific articles published in reputable scientific journals.

And the honorary degree is an award. How else can I describe it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mycologists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cecil_Edmund_Yarwood

Readbothsides (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Readbothsides

Draft:Exchange Bank of Canada‎;

Hi @Garchy. I have reviewed your points on declining Exchange Bank of Canada's page and updated the page references so they are more specific to the bank. The original first line reference was the list of domestic banks in Canada (which did include EBC so I'm not sure why you mentioned it didn't). I understand if you took it as a "passive" mention. Part of the notoriety of EBC is that there are only 30 banks in Canada and three were created just this year (unlike the US where there are literally tens of thousands of financial institutions). With that said, I now reference the Canadian Treasurer magazine article, which I think you'll agree is a better reference from the significant and specific point of view. Cbeixc (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Cbeixc: thank you for making changes to the article! With the addition of the Canadian Treasurer magazine article I think this significantly improves the chances of the draft passing - in my searches of EBC I could see that it was notable enough for an article, but it was not evident within the earlier draft. I see another editor has it under review as we speak, so good luck! Garchy (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:TPEGRANT

I just stumbled across you again looking at some of the WP:RFPs. May I suggest you watchlist User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable where template edit requests are listed. Many of the requests come in poorly formed, phrased in general terms and lacking sandbox versions. It may provide you with a source of requests for which you could provide sandboxes and testcases which would help you meet the permissions threshold pretty quickly.

ping Beeblebrox, Andy M. Wang, just in case they disagree.

Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cabayi: Thank you for the helpful advice, that is a great idea for me to gain more experience within the template environment. Garchy (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Research Administrators Certification Council

Hi Garchy, I'll admit, I am somewhat at a loss now as to what to do with this page. For the first two times requesting publication, I was instructed to make edits reflecting the organization's external notoriety using third party sources. I have thoroughly done so by citing every source that mentions this organization (RACC), save one recent article from NCURA magazine. Now, all of a sudden, when I resubmit for consideration it's being deemed advertising. As a nonprofit, RACC gains very little by having this page here. We are a certifying body only, much like AICPA is for Certified Public Accountants. However, I find it very odd that there is a published Wikipedia page that is about one of RACC's trademarked certifications (Certified Research Administrator), which wouldn't exist without RACC. How can that page exist and yet the body that created it not? Any advice on how to solve this chicken and egg problem would be appreciated. —Amgray19 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC) Amgray19 (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Amgray19: Thank you for reaching out. Regardless of whether a company is for-profit or non-profit an article can still read promotional. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this article does not sound like it is neutrally toned or reflecting only the facts. This line, for example, "RACC was formed as a private, non-profit corporation in 1993 with the primary purpose of certifying that an individual, through experience and testing, has the fundamental knowledge necessary to be a professional research or sponsored programs administrator." sounds like it came directly from the RACC website (I know it didn't, but it sounds like it!). It could be condensed to encyclopedic form to this: "RACC was formed in 1993 as a private, non-profit corporation". The intro sentence, "The Research Administrators Certification Council (RACC) is a non-profit organization established to certify that individuals, through experience and testing" already establishes what it is this council does. While Wikipedia does not have specific rules against this, an issue that is arising could be that you are closely tied to the RACC, which can make it harder to maintain a neutral-tone when writing an entry. As for the the fact that there is a page created for the RACC's trademark certifications, it is odd - but happens all the time! As Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia there are many times a page exists for one subject but not for a closely related other - however, this should not be used as an argument for article creation, otherwise things would be fairly chaotic :) I hope this helps! Garchy (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Garchy,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Request on 19:47:39, 8 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by RobbieIanMorrison

RobbieIanMorrison (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Open energy system models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Garchy. With reference to your draft article review last week.

First, let me thank you for taking the time to outline your objections. That was very helpful. Nothing is worse than being turned down with standard boilerplate.

I accept the criticisms regarding style (Wikipedia is not a scientific journal) and unrelated references (not all references appear to be directly correlated to the topic). The style can be worked on and the unrelated references can be deleted (they were there to provide context but are not needed on reflection).

But I do take issue with the idea that the article provides an indiscriminate collection of information. Perhaps you don't spend time on the computer science pages, but there are many articles listing software and covering all manner of applications. To give just one example, take the list of optimization software page with a section on free and open source software. In my view, the only distinction between this page and the rejected page is that the individual projects in the optimization page have articles of their own. Moreover, the criticism of the draft page being large and unwieldy is due to the fact that there are a significant number of open energy system projects (31 in total) and that they (with the exception of reegle) do not have stand-alone articles (nor would most warrant one).

The WP:NOTCATALOG policy is not explicitly against lists. It states that Wikipedia is not "simple listings without context information" and that "information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose". I feel the article fulfils both these requirements, however imperfectly.

This is the first time I have approached a reviewer. On previous occasions (eight in total) I have either responded by addressing the identified shortcoming or, on one occasion, simply abandoning the draft. In all but one case, I have broadly agreed with the comments from reviewers.

In this instance, for the reasons above, I am asking you to reconsider your decision. I would also like you to look at the software page cited earlier for comparison. I am not sure I hold out much hope, given that you quoted Wikipedia:SNOW as an informing principle. But I would be interested in your response.

With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello again Garchy. On reflection, I withdraw my request for a reappraisal. Instead I have decided to:

add more structure to the article, separating the models into their respective categories (for instance, electricity, energy, top-down)
improve the use of citations to reliable published sources, both primary and secondary, and duly align the text
remove the embedded URLs

I will then resubmit in the hope that I have satisfactorily addressed the issues that you raised and simultaneously made the article more encyclopedic. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @RobbieIanMorrison: my apologies for not getting back to you sooner. It's great to see you improving the article, I'd be happy to take a look and provide any suggestions going forward. I hope my decline, with the criteria "not suitable for Wikipedia" did not turn you off, as that was not my intent (that specific type of decline tends to come across as harsh, hence my extra comments). I do see there being potential for a standalone article on this topic given the work you are willing to put into it. I would also have another editor take a look at your draft, as my comments/suggestions are certainly not the only viewpoint on Wikipedia, I'm sure. Happy editing! Garchy (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Garchy. Thanks for your encouraging comments. I would like to improve the draft and submit again. I must say it takes a while to really understand the content, style, and validation requirements of Wikipedia.

I would like to take you up on your offer of an informal review at some time in the future (certainly some weeks away). The AfC process itself would benefit from having more than one formal reviewer, but I guess that is simply too resource intensive. I do note that some reviewers ask for a second opinion on occasion.

Notwithstanding, the articles covering software on Wikipedia seem often to fall outside the formal requirements for Wikipedia. They seldom quote independent sources (even for scientific software, the bulk of the academic literature is written by the developers themselves) and instead rely on software documentation in some form for most of their information. They can involve long lists and large tables, detailing the key features and comparative attributes for a given class of software. I think that software articles have developed their own conventions and should be judged, at least in part, by those conventions, and not by the more formal encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia. Alternatively, one can argue that such articles have no place in Wikipedia, but they are, nonetheless, very useful and quite common. I suspect they generate quite a lot of traffic too.

Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison: You have happened upon one of the constant struggles of Wikipedia, which is creating articles for a core audience while ensuring they are readable and easily understood by the larger Wiki community, something which is nearly impossible in some cases to do! For scientific or scholarly subjects I tend to refer to "Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics." Some subjects simply cannot be written this way without losing large amounts of information or mincing words, which is an issue you may find since this subject is expansive. In that case there may be other editors who can help pull the "net net" (boy do I hate that term) out and condense the subject if need be. Are you familiar with WikiProjects? There is a Wiki Project for Software that may have editors who have more experience than I do in article creation for software articles. I'm of course still happy to lend my assistance, just thought a few experts in the subject may provide another viewpoint. Cheers! Garchy (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello again Garchy. Thanks for your response and information. I was not familiar with the Wiki Project for Software. The project has related style manuals: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing and Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style, both of which I have just read. The former relates to software and hardware but is mostly about terminology, while the second concentrates on theoretical computer science. Neither offer much in the way of guidance for the draft page I am working on. I take your point about the tension between precise and accessible language. It is something many technical writers struggle with. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Request on 20:47:01, 16 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Ruth L Jones

Ruth L Jones (talk · contribs)
- User:Ruth L Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I understand now why the page I submitted titled Christine Kinsey was deleted, but I do not have a copy of what I wrote, much of which was not duplicated from copyrighted material. Is it possible for a copy of the text including its citations to be restored so that I can rework it and remove any text that infringes copyright? This is my first wiki page, and I am learning the ropesRuth L Jones (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ruth L Jones:, I'm happy to help you figure this out. Did you create the page using a different username? I can't seem to find any article created under your current account. Generally, any admin would be happy to userfy the article for you (moving it into a special area where you can work on it in peace), but depending on the amount of copyright violations they may opt to not restore it (if the bulk of the article is found to not be usable due to copyright they may suggest you start again fresh). Garchy (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the only user name I've had on wikiRuth L Jones (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ruth L Jones: What is the name of the draft article you are working on? Thanks! Garchy (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It is called Christine Kinsey, thanks!-- End of message -->Ruth L Jones

216.195.16.205 at it again

You blocked this guy once before. Looks like he might need more attention (let me know if I should request this elsewhere) User_talk:216.195.16.205 --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jwy: Thanks for the heads up! I'm not an admin so I won't be able to block, but we can report this activity at WP:ANV - Admins usually require a warning be issued prior to a block being implemented, so I'll see if that works first :) Thanks, Garchy (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I read the "you may be" as "you have been" in your previous warning. Thanks! --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Garchy,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Request on 19:47:39, 8 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by RobbieIanMorrison

RobbieIanMorrison (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Open energy system models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)