SuggestBot 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 |
March 2022
2 Battle drafts
Hey, I wanted to let you know I stumbled on two battle drafts. Honestly, they might have a chance, based on the amount of content present, so I thought I would let you know about them. I am not sure if they are notable battles. Draft:Battle of Irpin & Draft:Battle of Bucha. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for your efforts
![]() |
The Current Events Barnstar | |
Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC) |
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Viewsridge (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Azov
![]() | This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place{{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I actually don’t doubt you have heard about discretionary sanctions, but was under the impression when I left this one earlier that I had to give one to everyone involved, like you have to notify everyone at NPOV. I have also realized that you have an extensive talk history and I didn’t (and don’t want to) comb it to see if you already have have one for Eastern Europe. If you do then please feel free to remove it. In fact, feel free to remove it even if you haven’t. All you have done that I think is wrong is to vote somewhat over hastily on a dishonest RFC, relying on the requestor’s representation of it, and this is not the hill I want to die on. We can discuss the RfD further if you like — I think if anything you should have voted merge and will be happy to explain why if you like — but my main point here is that you got the above notice because I was at the time under the impression that everyone had to get one, so sorry about that Elinruby (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BSMRD (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)}}
bro
Dont exit page about Shostka İ lived in this city, mt friends and grandma still here and confirms that city is controlled by Ukraine 5.47.149.123 (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Do you have any interest?
Is there some obvious reason why you're not an admin? I'm looking around at your user page, your talk and archives. You seem to demonstrate the right temperament. When I see your reports at boards, they are inevitably correct and needed. You seem to edit in a tricky set of content areas but I don't see any regular opponents. We need smart people to sysop. Zero pressure to even respond to this message. I don't want to lose a ANI clerk. BusterD (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- BusterD, Thanks for your kind words
; it would be an honor to be placed into consideration for admin team. In sum, I am indeed interested. Curbon7 (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've asked a friend to give your case a look. If their impression is like mine, I'd suggest you put yourself up at WP:OCRP for sharper eyes than ours. If you decide you're not quite ready yet, that's not a negative; that's wisdom, which is a high qualification, IMHO. If I can be helpful in ANY way, feel free to call. Nice to meet you. BusterD (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Per the link Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, locate the "three questions" and start pondering your answers. If you need help ask. Make sure you've read the entire Advice page. Twice. Then go over by yourself to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll and click the bar at the page's bottom which invites you to "Start a poll on your chances of passing RfA". If you need guidance, it's wise to go to the recent archives and look at how candidates have introduced themselves and how each discussion has developed. I want to emphasize: this is a job interview, sort of screening to see if you GET to the broader interview, the RfA. Things you say, jokes you make, history you disclose, WILL BE read and read again by strangers. We had a sockpuppet of a banned editor come within hours of getting the mop this last year, so many will come to the broader RfA process with major skepticism. In the online poll, you will get the best advice one could expect from the small (but austere) group of page watchers on the poll. Supposing the poll likes you as much as we do, we'd need to find you some first class nominators. Pending results of the online poll I'd be happy to nominate but the process will go easier if more legendary editors choose to nominate. You might get offers to nominate at the poll. So do your reading, make your decision and expect Leek, myself, and A.C. to say encouraging things as appropriate. BusterD (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I should add: I will stay with you during this process until I'm no longer needed or until you kick me out. You are not alone, really, you are not alone. The community is eager, nay anxious, for great candidates to put themselves forward. Many in the community will be hoping to see you succeed. Some are skeptical by nature. Thank the powers that be for skepticism. But me, I'm sticking around, so don't EVER feel alone. You are Robin Hood, and I'm Friar Tuck. We'll accumulate our merry band as we go. It will be fun. BusterD (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- BusterD, thanks for all of your help, I'd be so grateful to have your assistance through the process; you'll be the Sam to my Frodo, and we'll create a legendary Fellowship
. I will probably start the poll over the weekend, as I'd like to make sure I'm well-read on both policy and advice/tips. Curbon7 (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Just so we're clear, the online poll isn't really an interview. You will introduce yourself and put yourself forward for examination. They won't ask you that many questions. Strangers will look at your user and talk pages, histories and archives. Folks will pull up your contributions, then filter and examine what such edits say about the person making them. This can be a time consuming process. I spent an hour before I sent my first message to you. Leek and A.C. wouldn't have commented with looking well at your data. People at the poll may spend more time and be better at reading such things. Then those watching will give blunt assessment. Because of the well-informed and vastly-experienced sort of participants, they pretty much hit the center of the dart board reliably. So this is more an objective assessment. If you're who you represent yourself to be, then they'll find plenty of things about you to like and perhaps a few places where improvement, confession or a waiting period might be useful. Reading is always useful. Here's an unexpectedly useful reading list: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles. It's a lot, but I think of it as a calendar thing. I read one every day. I just started over again. It helps to know what expected behavior is. BusterD (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- BusterD, it took me around a day and a half from start to finish to write it out, but I started my poll. I'm very nervous, but also curious as to see how I'm received. Thanks for all of your help so far. Curbon7 (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- In retrospect, I would have said less than more. Right now, get hooked up with two factor authentication. And consider strengthening your email and general security passwords in the next few weeks. But get two factor on right away so you can report it at the poll. I have mentioned this is an un usual process. Generally people at ORCP are trying to help you get ready. If you were going to be rejected, that would be obvious already. BusterD (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- BusterD, it took me around a day and a half from start to finish to write it out, but I started my poll. I'm very nervous, but also curious as to see how I'm received. Thanks for all of your help so far. Curbon7 (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just so we're clear, the online poll isn't really an interview. You will introduce yourself and put yourself forward for examination. They won't ask you that many questions. Strangers will look at your user and talk pages, histories and archives. Folks will pull up your contributions, then filter and examine what such edits say about the person making them. This can be a time consuming process. I spent an hour before I sent my first message to you. Leek and A.C. wouldn't have commented with looking well at your data. People at the poll may spend more time and be better at reading such things. Then those watching will give blunt assessment. Because of the well-informed and vastly-experienced sort of participants, they pretty much hit the center of the dart board reliably. So this is more an objective assessment. If you're who you represent yourself to be, then they'll find plenty of things about you to like and perhaps a few places where improvement, confession or a waiting period might be useful. Reading is always useful. Here's an unexpectedly useful reading list: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles. It's a lot, but I think of it as a calendar thing. I read one every day. I just started over again. It helps to know what expected behavior is. BusterD (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- BusterD, thanks for all of your help, I'd be so grateful to have your assistance through the process; you'll be the Sam to my Frodo, and we'll create a legendary Fellowship
- I should add: I will stay with you during this process until I'm no longer needed or until you kick me out. You are not alone, really, you are not alone. The community is eager, nay anxious, for great candidates to put themselves forward. Many in the community will be hoping to see you succeed. Some are skeptical by nature. Thank the powers that be for skepticism. But me, I'm sticking around, so don't EVER feel alone. You are Robin Hood, and I'm Friar Tuck. We'll accumulate our merry band as we go. It will be fun. BusterD (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Per the link Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, locate the "three questions" and start pondering your answers. If you need help ask. Make sure you've read the entire Advice page. Twice. Then go over by yourself to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll and click the bar at the page's bottom which invites you to "Start a poll on your chances of passing RfA". If you need guidance, it's wise to go to the recent archives and look at how candidates have introduced themselves and how each discussion has developed. I want to emphasize: this is a job interview, sort of screening to see if you GET to the broader interview, the RfA. Things you say, jokes you make, history you disclose, WILL BE read and read again by strangers. We had a sockpuppet of a banned editor come within hours of getting the mop this last year, so many will come to the broader RfA process with major skepticism. In the online poll, you will get the best advice one could expect from the small (but austere) group of page watchers on the poll. Supposing the poll likes you as much as we do, we'd need to find you some first class nominators. Pending results of the online poll I'd be happy to nominate but the process will go easier if more legendary editors choose to nominate. You might get offers to nominate at the poll. So do your reading, make your decision and expect Leek, myself, and A.C. to say encouraging things as appropriate. BusterD (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've asked a friend to give your case a look. If their impression is like mine, I'd suggest you put yourself up at WP:OCRP for sharper eyes than ours. If you decide you're not quite ready yet, that's not a negative; that's wisdom, which is a high qualification, IMHO. If I can be helpful in ANY way, feel free to call. Nice to meet you. BusterD (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- BusterD, Is it alright if we continue the rest of this conversation in private, via email or Discord? I'd like to air out my feelings without feeling like everyone is watching. Curbon7 (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
The Million Award for you!
![]() |
The Million Award |
For your contributions to bring Marjorie Taylor Greene (estimated annual readership: 4,890,614) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! |
seems this one went unawarded as I was looking through your contribution history—nicely done! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The Quarter Million Award |
For your contributions to bring Nikki Fried (estimated annual readership: 257,330) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! |
and while we're at it... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
April 2022
Question
“Also, we do allow the use of non-English sources (WP:NOTENG).” I am struggling to find an interpretation of this that is other than “we do not allow the use of non-English sources”. Please help me with this? If you are already aware that sources can be in French or German or Ukrainian, that is good. I am just not entirely sure what I misread there. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Elinruby, We're on the same page lol. Per WP:NOTENG, non-English sources are allowed to be used. Curbon7 (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Aha. I was fooled by the way you said they weren’t. If this was just a shortcut for saying that a tweet probably doesn’t count as an RS anyway, and thus isn’t eligible for for that policy to apply, well and good, i was just...confused. Getting gaslighted a lot right now and it is making me literal, lol. As in gee, I actually use non-English sources quite a bit?Anyway, thanks for clarifying. Elinruby (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- (lurker speaks): I hope I am not an en.wikipedian, but a wikipedian. Western English-speakers (especially "my fellow Americans") tend to be somewhat closed-minded to non-English sources, but in many cases the best sources are in a language closer to the subject matter. IMHO, don't shy away from using reliable non-English sources when available, so long as the page text and appropriate citation is written according to MOS. BusterD (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Right. But (to use an example that frequently occurs in my life) if the topic is let’s say a 7th century battle in Provence, or a 15th century castle in Normandy, the only source is often the Bibliothèque Nationale de France. I would not be required to limit myself to what it might not say in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I am sorry, I know I am being pedantic, but I have been told otherwise so many times that I feel the need to try to improve awareness on this. Curbon7 was right not to add breaking news to a sensitive page based on a tweeted video in Ukrainian; I just felt a need to take issue with the parenthesis. Over and out and thank you Elinruby (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Elinruby, ah so that's where the confusion came from! WP:NOTENG is just one of the shortcuts for Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, which is the policy that we're discussing and are all in agreement on. I'll be sure in the future to use the more clear WP:NONENG so there isn't any confusion. Curbon7 (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
K thanks ;) I am familiar with it and thought you weren’t. I’ve just noticed that the phrase that I pasted here says “do allow”, not “do not allow”. How embarrassing. My bad and my apologies. Taking this as a sign that I need a break from trying to explain what is a reliable source to people who think it can’t be in Ukrainian, Going to ease off stage left now, mumbling to myself, and go work on something nice and soothing like cell tower spoofing and shell corporations. Thanks for the lulz, sorry to be the one providing them. Elinruby (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Elizabeth Bennett-Parker
Hello, Curbon7. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Elizabeth Bennett-Parker, 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) 09:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
you keep your head up :)
listen, if the worst anyone's got is this "ANI clerk" thing, you're gonna be a great admin someday—and now you've got a clear path and some things to work on. Whenever you run, i look forward to supporting. at risk of resorting to cliché, you keep up the great work and it's gonna be just fine. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Theleekycauldron, sorry I'm only responding now, but thanks for your kind words
. I'm pretty optimistic for the future. I've also gotten back into my usual editing rhythm, so that feels really good. Curbon7 (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:burden
Good day. Kindly respect wp:burden, and if you restore material deleted as lacking RS citations, supply RS citations yourself. --2603:7000:2143:8500:95F2:285B:23D8:15C6 (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Teyora - Development first look!
Hi! I'm Ed6767, the original creator of RedWarn, now one of the most popular tools on the English Wikipedia that's been used by over 1,000 Wikimedians to make over 300,000 edits since mid-2020 that's been praised for its user friendliness and ease of use, but criticised for its limited functionality. I'm leaving this message as I think it may be of interest here - I left the RedWarn project in November to develop Teyora, my successor to RedWarn (alongside Chlod's UltraViolet). It's a new in development web app that uses some of the latest web technologies to create a highly extendable all in one editing tool with a focus on administration, counter vandalism and general patrolling - not to mention, it'll work on every Wikimedia project without any prior configuration and can be used by any user with at least auto-confirmed rights*. Now, I'm ready to give the Wikimedia community a first look at what I've been doing over the past six months and what to expect going forward.
You can check out the 20 minute first look at the in development version on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzlpnzXdLP4.
There's lots more to expect too! Why not read the full details page at meta:Teyora and leave any feedback, comments or wishes at meta:Talk:Teyora (please leave any correspondence there to keep discussion centralised). If you're interested, you can leave your signature
*with basic features, advanced features require configuration. To prevent abuse, auto-confirmed users will be in a restricted mode until approved by an admin or via rollback rights.
All the best, ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 23:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Would you mind looking at a topic ban proposal?
I don't have much experience with this stuff and neither do the folks involved. Would you look at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Draft_ANI_notice? If you choose not to respond or involve yourself, that's 100% cool. Just not something I see a lot. Thanks in any event. BusterD (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- BusterD, oh boy am I drafting up a reply, gimme like 15 mins I'm getting diffs. Curbon7 (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep it over here if you don't want to be accused of taking a side. I'm asking for your expertise, not your opinion... BusterD (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- BusterD, Yeah that was a weird way for me to have said there's a lot going on here, and it may be worth going further than a DYK-TBAN. I've had personally few interactions with this user, but their noticeboard mentions have been wild to say the least, to the point it's probably best that it be a full report. Their battleground behavior seems to be a perennial issue across the board. Curbon7 (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree 100%. There's something more than just elbow-swinging/space-making going on with this contributor. If you want to chime in, I'm sure your help would be appreciated. If you'd rather stay out, I'm still interested in your perspective, even if in retrospect. BusterD (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- [1] [2] [3] [4]
- Some diffs that show battleground behavior in various areas, very recently as well. Apparently the deleting comments they disagree with isn't restrained to DYK, as per the first diff they did it there too. That said, I think I would prefer not to personally headline the case, as there appears to be a considerable amount going on with it, but I may jump in from the sideline if there's something that is missed. Curbon7 (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree 100%. There's something more than just elbow-swinging/space-making going on with this contributor. If you want to chime in, I'm sure your help would be appreciated. If you'd rather stay out, I'm still interested in your perspective, even if in retrospect. BusterD (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- BusterD, Yeah that was a weird way for me to have said there's a lot going on here, and it may be worth going further than a DYK-TBAN. I've had personally few interactions with this user, but their noticeboard mentions have been wild to say the least, to the point it's probably best that it be a full report. Their battleground behavior seems to be a perennial issue across the board. Curbon7 (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep it over here if you don't want to be accused of taking a side. I'm asking for your expertise, not your opinion... BusterD (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Muslim-Yadav formula
Please do the needful from your hand written by me with so many independent and relevant sources but article moved to draft. Vandy 1989 (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Dont delete the page on Arunita Kanjilal
Please dont delete the page on Arunita Kanjilal, one user is repeatedly doing vandalism by putting info, we are working on reverting the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.167.252 (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see why this pertains me? I've never edited this article, and I am not an administrator so I can't delete articles. Curbon7 (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
May 2022
Prod of Battles of Kruty (2022)
Thanks for the PROD suggestion at Battles of Kruty (2022). After I reviewed it, I think that there might be a case for the article now even though it was basically a "snow delete" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kruty skirmishes. It may well be that a discussion will yield that same result, or maybe not. If you still believe the article should be deleted, please start a new AFD. My reason for making this call is because even though a relatively short period of time has passed, a lot has happened. You might be right--I just would be more comfortable having a few others discuss it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Paulmcdonald, fair points and thanks for your respectful handling of this
. After thinking for a few days, I decided to re-nom it for AfD. Nothing changed since the last AfD, no new sources exist and the old sources are still completely unverifiable. At worst it's a complete hoax, at best it's just not notable. Curbon7 (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable outcome/next step.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Help in revising my page
Hi Curbon7, I've tried to revise the article that deals with my contributions to the discussion on "global nomadism", "transculturality" and "global mobility" as best as I could. Yes, I know there is a conflict of interest but I hope I have been sufficiently objective and transparent in that regard. I'd appreciate if you could go through the article and let me know if you deem it adhered to Wikipedia standards or whether you would have any further suggestions on how to improve it. Thanks you for your consideration and your help! Arianna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aridag (talk • contribs) 17:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello Curbon7,
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 741 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 1032 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)
Battle of Bakhmut (2022)
I picked this off a list of articles needing a copyedit, and would like to get it to where I feel comfortable taking off the tagging. I see you did a re-write on it and really haven't found much wrong with it (in comparison to what the talk page originally said). Just the sort of minor typos that are common on a heavily edited page. But I did have one question I would like to ask you because I am told you are pretty good at policies, and are apparently familiar with the article.
The dab link at the top (Battle of Bakhmut (1918-1919)) is a redlink. I don't recall seeing this before. I can see why it might be useful; I am just wondering whether you know whether MoS has anything to say about this. Could you please ping me in any reply, or answer on my talk page if you prefer? I am not watching your talk page. Thanks for any brainpower you apply to this question. Elinruby (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
June 2022
The Point was created as an article again
Thought you might want to know that The Point (studio show) was created again. It doesn’t seem to be ready for the main space but I am not able to move it to draft. It’s much better than the original version though.Esolo5002 (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- It was re-added with sources, so it doesn't need to be moved back to draftspace. Curbon7 (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Flag icons in military conflict infoboxes
Hi Curbon7, at Battle of Ivankiv you reverted my edit where I have removed unnecessary flag icons with the comment: Battles are an exception to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, see for example Battle of Gettysburg.
Battles are not an exception to the "rule" (ie the broad community consensus) and WP:MILMOS#FLAGS is consistent with that at MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. In general, ... icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative? Icons that differentiate among several parties (for example, icons used to indicate commander allegiance in Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945)) are likely to be useful, while icons that convey irrelevant or redundant information are usually not.
When there are only two belligerents sides (as at Ivankiv), flag icons serve no useful purpose and their removal is consistent with the guidance. On the other hand, if there is at least one co-belligerent on one side and entries in other fields where the co-belligerents are need to be distinguished then flag icons can usefully convey this information (see Battle of Buna–Gona as an example). That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, such as Battle of Gettysburg, only carries weight if it represents "best practice". While Battle of Gettysburg is a GA, the infobox when it was promoted and reviewed are substantially different from that at present and is no longer compliant with guidance on this particular issue and some other matters (particularly such an extensive list of leaders which would be inconsistent with the advice at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and the template documentation). The infobox at Gettysberg no longer represents best practice.
Part of the edit at Ivankiv you reinstated entries to the unit parameter which simply stated the "armed forces" of each country. This is redundant information and therefor not consistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Furthermore, an hierarchical list starting with a countries armed forces, then a particular branch and so on is also redundant information when actually reporting a particular formation or unit. It is not consistent with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE
You appear to have made similar reverts to at least these articles: Battle of Brovary, Capture of Chernobyl and Battle of Slavutych where the same considerations were applied. I trust that this is suffient clarification of the validity of these edits. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Cinderella157, Ok. I'm not a frequent editor of military history, so I'll take your word on it. The only one I don't see is I do think there should be a flagicon for the belligerent parameter, but for the other parameters I can totally see how that's just clutter (I'm assuming an exception is when there are different national entities on the same side, right?). RE: the part about the units, again, not a frequent editor here so I'll take your word for it; in this case, I think it would be preferred to use the brigade involved (with the individual regiments written into the prose instead). Cheers. Curbon7 (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are correct, flag icons can be useful if there are different nations on the same side. I acknowledge that you think they should be used in the belligerent field but not elsewhere; however, it is usually a quantum choice - and I doubt that most inexperienced editors would understand the distinction you would make. You only have to look at the MOS:FLAGCRUFT in some of these articles, where every possible flag is used. I would generally agree with you about units though it can be a little subtle. We certainly don't need every step in the heirachy from the "armed forces" down. If a formation (say a brigade or division) was the force engaged, then we wouldn't list the individual units making up the formation. If though, a brigade had one of its three combat battalions detached, we might list the remaining two under the brigade in the infobox. The key point (per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE) is to not bloat the infobox with unnecessary intricate detail. Having said that, I would generally agree with your view on this. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Saadoun Brahim
The article Saadoun Brahim that you have relocated to my draft space contains 10 references, and these are references normally recognized in Wikipedia. I mean, they are not social media postings. All claims in the article are based exclusively on these references. As a result, I see you page move action as vandalism that I have reverted. Please refrain from doing unweighted actions like this. Audriusa (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Audriusa, I moved it to draftspace so it can be worked on in a safe environment where it won't be at risk of deletion, as the article at the moment is formatted very poorly, not neutral, and the claim to notability is very thin with regards to WP:BLP1E. The fact that you can't see that I was literally trying to help you is baffling. And accusing me of vandalism? Fuck off with that shit. How dare you accuse me of "page move vandalism". Curbon7 (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Kasymaly Jantöshev
Hello! Your submission of Kasymaly Jantöshev at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
New message from Narutolovehinata5
Message added 06:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
will need your help and advice
writing notable paragraphs SPwiki4africa (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @SPwiki4africa, consider reading WP:YFA. It has a lot of helpful tips to writing your first article. Curbon7 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Joe Giglio
Hello, Curbon7
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Bruxton, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Joe Giglio, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.
If you wish to contest the deletion:
- Remove the text that looks like this:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}}
- Click the button.
If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Bruxton}}
. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Bruxton (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Joe G
I did not speed tag the Joe Giglio article. I checked the references and they are less than WP:BARE. Unfortunately I may have to send it to deletion. Bruxton (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- He's obviously notable per WP:NPOL. I see you just got the NPR perm today, so it's ok, and I understand where the confusion comes from, as our notability guidelines are vast and often contradictory; however, it is imperative to at least have a grasp on some of the more frequent WP:SNGs, like WP:NPOL and WP:NPROF. Curbon7 (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Curbon7
Thank you for creating Sultan Ali al-Arada.
User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thanks for the article!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Albino Aboug
Hello Carbon7. You edited the page for Albino Aboug and stated that he is related to Salva Kiir. This information is not accurate. The two are not related.
Direct quote from Albino Aboug https://www.mwebantu.com/south-sudan-makes-push-to-lead-the-pan-african-parliament/ The Mfalme (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Mfalme, ok thank you. You should've just linked to that in the first place, it would cleared things up much sooner, as the other source was stating that he was related to him, which is where the confusion stemmed from! Curbon7 (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Hello Curbon7,
- 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[a] 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.[b]
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:
>NPP backlog: 11441 as of 02:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
Kieran Molloy
That is supposed to be a "may refer to" page - like Sean Kelly. Sean Kelly doesn't have what you are asking for either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingoal (talk • contribs) 15:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
It is as close to Sean Kelly as I can get it now. Move it back. can you move it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingoal (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I put in the citations now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingoal (talk • contribs) 15:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fingoal, I added the disambiguating links to both pages; per our guidelines on disambiguation pages, when there is only two articles, they don't need a disambiguation page; Template:For is the preferred in this case. Curbon7 (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
2 Questions
1. Have you ever met any people born in Africa who live in the United States? If so, which countries were they born in? 2. On a scale on 1 to 10, 1 being the worst and 10 being the best, how good do you think on making contributions to Wikipedia? AmericanEditor350 (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- AmericanEditor350, My brother's father-in-law used to be a big-shot in the Congo back in like the 70s, but he had to flee the country cause of war and now lives in Atlanta. As for the 2nd question, I'm not sure what you mean? Curbon7 (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- What I mean is, how good I do on editing articles and making articles? AmericanEditor350 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- AmericanEditor350, You have the right spirit and the right character, so I'm sure you'll develop into a fine editor. I understand our extensive notability guidelines can be confusing and sometimes even contradictory. Everyone struggles a bit when they're first starting out, so don't worry too much. I'd recommend doing easier tasks on articles that already exist, and then gradually building up from there. That'll give you a good foundation to understand a lot of different policies and will help you improve. I'm sure you'll be fine
Curbon7 (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- AmericanEditor350, You have the right spirit and the right character, so I'm sure you'll develop into a fine editor. I understand our extensive notability guidelines can be confusing and sometimes even contradictory. Everyone struggles a bit when they're first starting out, so don't worry too much. I'd recommend doing easier tasks on articles that already exist, and then gradually building up from there. That'll give you a good foundation to understand a lot of different policies and will help you improve. I'm sure you'll be fine
- What I mean is, how good I do on editing articles and making articles? AmericanEditor350 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
July 2022
NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |