New page reviewer
( • view requests)
User:James-the-Charizard
- James-the-Charizard (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci)
- Back in September, I requested, and was given the NPR rights for 3 months, set to expire in early December, now I am here to request a permanent extension of the right. I've reviewed and tagged pages appropriately, and want to continue helping newer users. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 13:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- @James-the-Charizard: thanks for your continued interest in New Page Reviewing. I have some questions and concerns based on your NPP so far. I see a lot of red links - 11/29 reviewed articles by my count. Most of these have been speedily deleted even. One that was speedily deleted, recreated, and then deleted at AfD with your participation was Zionfelix (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zionfelix). Do you recall how you went from thinking it should be reviewed to !voting delete at AfD? Normally I would ignore this as it came early on but it is part of a possible trend. More recently Shreedeep rayamajhi was properly moved by you to Shreedeep Rayamajhi but was then deleted there as a WP:G4. Do you have thoughts or other context that would be helpful in evaluating these? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 In the case of the Zionfelix article, I was in the process of doing a bit of research to check wether sources got missed or for copyright violations, but I ran out of time (real life hits hard) but I did the tags first, and forgot to press unreview (as I was going to let others look at the article too). Once I looked into things further, I found a lack of reliable sources along with promotional language (which ended up being removed by another user) which made my vote delete on that AfD. As for the other one, I moved the article (as all BLP articles have uppercase names) and saw potential in the article, however I didn't know it was eligible for G4 at the time (likely the previously deleted tag was inadvertently removed when I moved the pages) which is why I just left it be after I was done with the small minor fixes. The thing is, on several of the red link articles, I would've probably tagged for speedy deletion, but I held back just to be safe (technically going against the policy of being bold, but oh well.) and figured let other reviewers handle those articles. Since then I have grown more and learned and am not afraid to hold back. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 19:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- @James-the-Charizard: thanks for your continued interest in New Page Reviewing. I have some questions and concerns based on your NPP so far. I see a lot of red links - 11/29 reviewed articles by my count. Most of these have been speedily deleted even. One that was speedily deleted, recreated, and then deleted at AfD with your participation was Zionfelix (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zionfelix). Do you recall how you went from thinking it should be reviewed to !voting delete at AfD? Normally I would ignore this as it came early on but it is part of a possible trend. More recently Shreedeep rayamajhi was properly moved by you to Shreedeep Rayamajhi but was then deleted there as a WP:G4. Do you have thoughts or other context that would be helpful in evaluating these? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- Done for three more months. There's enough promise here to warrant continued work, but James please take some time to improve your knowledge and ability to accurately tag for speedy deletion. There was a broad range of reasons why the articles were speedily deleted, everything from G4 (which this script can help with) to copyright, to Spam. If you find you need help with any of this please don't hesitate to drop me a line or ask at WT:NPR. Best,Barkeep49 (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Loksmythe
- Loksmythe (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci)
- I enjoy doing cleanup on Wikipedia and reviewing new content so I believe I could make positive contributions as a new page reviewer. Loksmythe (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- ✗ Not done. Thanks for your work on cleaning-up Wikipedia. You are on a good path towards NPP but we look for a variety of experience around deletion and notability that you haven't yet accumulated. I have instead granted Pending Changes Reviewer - please click on that link to read more about how to use that right. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Sakiv
- Sakiv (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci)
- I think I can be helpful in reviewing new pages. I also think I have use for it because of a good number of articles I would like to review. 1, 2, 3. I have the experience needed since I have been a regular editor for 4 years in addition to having good understanding of general notability guidelines. I can confirm to you that I will use this permission responsibly. I have been recommended by an administrator to requesting this permission back in October. If there are questions I'm ready to answer.--Sakiv (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Sakiv (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([1]). — MusikBot talk 10:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Done for six months. I'm glad to see you reapply - after you have a good body of reviews feel free to come back and ask to make it permanent even if it's before the six months. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)