GOCE Copy/Edit Request; Jews of Hull
Hi Slywriter, what a nicely done article, well-organized and thorough. For its length, it's actually pretty easy to read without exhaustion because you've segmented it so nicely. I made edits -- a few sub titles modified for clarity, mostly spelling, punctuation and clarification edits. Two things: 1) Your comment on the GOCe copy/edit request was that the article is overly-cited, which I agree, but it would be far easier for you as the original author to go through and where there are multiple citations supporting the same fact, you really only need one, not severla. It would be faster and easier for you to handle this since it's not so much editing but rather just choosing one citation to use. 2) I made a few inline comments, which are [superscript and italicized] where the prose was not quite clear and I feel the article would be improved if these few items could be clarified. Otherwise, a great page! The Real Serena JoyTalk 00:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- TheRealSerenaJoy, I can take zero credit for the article other than putting it on the radar for GOCE. Philip_Sugarman has spent years building the article and should see the compliment left here. Thank you though for your work. Between the clean-up and earlier split, think there's a good article sitting there now.Slywriter (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Excellent. Compliments to everyone involved! It was an interesting read, and hopefully Philip Sugarman can answer the couple little questions I've left in superscript. The Real Serena JoyTalk 19:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Article for deletion - Cadet Wing Director of Operations
Hi Slywriter! You helped me get an article published last year and I was wondering if you could take a look at the one I have recently submitted for review to see if it is eligible or how it can be made eligible. I hope you're well. Thanks, Venus.
Draft:Salvatore Ambrosini
Hi, I read the warning you added to the entry Draft:Salvatore Ambrosini and I think it is nonsense, because the entry Maurizio Merluzzo, like other voices, has this reference... (Of course I am referring to the question of the IMDb profile) Nonna Angelina (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Pytest
Hi @Slywriter: thanks for taking the time to review Draft:Pytest. I've read your comment and want to know more about the specific ways of improvement. Since pytest is the most popular testing framework in Python, I do think it's worth creating a Wikipedia aritcle for. Currently there are five independent sources cited: two published books, one article from the developers at DropBox, one from Real Python, another from Python Insight. The other two are primary sources from the pytest official documentation.
- There are more independent sources that cover pytest. But I want to know exatly which direction I should make the article go before I proceed. Could you be a little more specific? Thomas Meng (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Slywriter, I added a few more sources including two more published books expaining pytest (now we have four published books). The article can still be improved further in my opinion, but could you check whether it's good for passing AfC now? I've resubmitted it for review, and any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks. Thomas Meng (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Alex_Crockford_(Coach)
Hi Slywriter! Thanks so much for your feedback on my draft. I've made some edits, does this read better now please and less like an advertisement?
Regarding the need for significant coverage, I've added some additional references. There are MANY more available, but from less reliable sources (such as the Daily Mail etc). Should I still include these where they are not the source of the facts included in the article, but are being referred to in and of themselves? (e.g "he has appeared in the Daily Mail").
Any other feedback to help make it ready to publish would be greatly appreciated, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisRSlade (talk • contribs) 23:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- ChrisRSlade, Daily Mail is never an acceptable source on Wikipedia. More fundamentally, you have large sections unsourced. As this is a WP:BLP, every statement should be sourced. And MANY sources is a subjective opinion as if they are low-quality sources, press releases, or otherwise connected to the subject they will not contribute to notability.Slywriter (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Jews in Hull
Thank you for your application and diligence. I'm sure you've perused the Talk page and saw that I tried to advise of WP BLOAT and many other aspects includng AGF nearly a year ago; I was viciously attacked - four attacks, actually, over the course of two days, at two third-party User Talk pages, so I had to withdraw, as newbie prevails over all. Sanctioned by an admin's throwaway remark, the bloating has continued for a year.
In this change, you used a keyword "realtor"; I recognised your allusion (realtor is not used in England), as I added the ref to cite that it was a former synagogue, turned into multi-occupancy commercial office space. It was deleted by the article author/owner, I re-added it and has endured until now; so this is just to clarify that it was not he who added it. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Atomic Habits
Thanks for reviewing this draft. There is a bug which is preventing the url from showing up in the copyvio decline tag. Are you able, please, to go back and re-enter it? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Found it! Cleaned it down, and requested CV-revdel FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- TimTrent, Should I leave a comment or talk page message as well when dealing with copyvio drafts?Slywriter (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is a set of ideal things to do. Niot everyone does all of them, and it is not properly stated anywhere that I have found. I'm pinging Primefac because they drew a lot of attention to it on WT:AFC right near the foot of the page:
- Identify the source of the copyvio.
- Decline citing the copyvio as the reason. Consider whether CSD is required. If so this is the end of the process (it may be a good aide memoire while the bug (see below in blue) is still affecting the script)to add the copyright url to an AFC comment, good call)
- Physically remove the copyvio by either:
- rewriting it (we can do this)
- redacting it. I often make it very obvious with a statement in each location that I have done so
- Ask for a cv-revdel. There is a gizmo I have in my More tab that makes this easy, but I forget where I got it from
- in your Decline you will see "cv". Once you are sure it has been cleaned, alter this to "cv-cleaned"
- All the foregoing is for normal times. We have a bug inthe AFCH script that fails to write the parameter |details= or |details2= (depends on which decline reason comes first). Please go the extra mile and add the url (absent from the decline template) eg "|details2=foo-bar.com"
- There, I think I got it all. I learned a lot of this while hunting down those that had exasperated Primefac, and I trust them to correct me (Please amend that stuff above, Primefac, formal permission given). If I have it right please feel free to edit and promulgate. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- The gizmo is User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel, which makes it easier to add a {{revdel}} request. Otherwise looks good. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is a set of ideal things to do. Niot everyone does all of them, and it is not properly stated anywhere that I have found. I'm pinging Primefac because they drew a lot of attention to it on WT:AFC right near the foot of the page:
- TimTrent, Should I leave a comment or talk page message as well when dealing with copyvio drafts?Slywriter (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Draft: Decision Education Foundation
Hello Slywriter,
Thank you for your help sorting out this article. Since you last provided feedback, I've added several citations from books (Hat tip to you for your suggestion to search Google books, Google News and Google Scholar!). Those suggestions also led me to find some other citations, remove duplicates and refine the text of the article by deleting some irrelevant content.
Thanks again for investing your efforts to make this a better article. Would you please be so kind as to take a look at the revised version? I believe it's ready for publication. Any further help you can offer will be more than welcome.
Tonypray (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Draft: Vladimir Shilstev
Hi, Slywriter! I have submitted wiki article on Prof. Vladimir Shiltsev Submission declined on 10 March 2022 by Slywriter (talk). Requests are: a) Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. b) Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added Editorial Comment was: Basically a resume. Slywriter (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC) I have read and got valuable insights from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) Prof.Shiltsev obviously satisfies Criterion 1 "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." - with highly cited works -eg in Reviews of Modern Physics, “pioneered or developed a significant new concept”, and several national and intl awards; Criterion 2 “The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.” – with 5 such awards; Criterion 3 “The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE). “ – he’s Fellow of at least three IEEE, AAAS and APS; Criterion 5 “The person has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)” – he’s a Distinguished Scientist at Fermilab. So, I decided to modify the article, reduce its length, concentrate on the key notability elements as advised by Wikipedia, and provide more verifiable, independent sources. I have also taken as examples two excellent Wiki articles on other famous accelerator physicists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekazi_Mtingwa and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Sands Please, consider and advise on my resubmission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vovatol (talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Draft: Palatine Lodge No. 97
Thanks for you review Slywriter and comments. Regarding my submission not being adequately supported by reliable sources. The source proving the existence of Palatine Lodge No 97 and its history, i.e., warrant dates, the Lodge Numbers, the places the Lodge met is supported by (ref 3) Lane’s Masonic Records, held at the Museum of Freemasonry and Published by The Digital Humanities Institute, University of Sheffield, England. The Museum of Freemasonry (ref wiki) is fully accredited by the UK Arts Council. Note, I’ve updated the Lane’s link to add the Publisher to clarify the credibility of this source. Palatine Lodge No 97 is very fortunate, it being one of very few Masonic Lodges in the world to have records dating back to 1757, in the form of written minutes and written history books etc. To make this rich history more accessible and to aid future researchers we digitised many pages from our old history books, compiled them, and published them on our official website. These ancient documents can be viewed, in person, but the next best is to have electronic access and the reason for me referencing them in my article. With regards to Notable members, given the nature of the organisation at that time, the only sources of proof that a person was a member of a Lodge, or indeed a Freemason, is by referencing old Lodge membership registers and documents like ours. Alternatively, Lodge membership records dating back to 1751 are held at the United Grand Lodge of England (Freemasons Hall) and can be accessed via Ancestry.co.uk. As this is a subscription service, I didn’t think it was advisable to use as a reference. Am I correct? I’m of the opinion that providing references to our notable ancient members will be invaluable to future researchers and should feature in my article. For example, there are few sources where a researcher could find out that John George Lambton (1792-1840), 1st Earl of Durham, was a Freemason and member of Palatine Lodge No 97, Sunderland. So, to conclude, I believe that Palatine Lodge No 97, with its long and rich history, should be published in Wikipedia. Could you please review my comments and provide further guidance, where necessary. Thanks again for your assistance. Stev201961 (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC) Stev201961 (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Stev201961, existence is not notability. And all of your sources are connected to the Masons. Wikipedia requires independent, secondary sources to establish notability.Slywriter (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also, please read WP:COI and make the proper declarations. Continuing to edit the subject without doing so is a violation of Wikipedia policies.Slywriter (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please note my response, thanks Stev201961 (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your response but obviously I am disappointed.
- Firstly, there is no COI. I am purely stating facts which are supported by historical evidence.
- As a new author, to ensure I followed the guidelines and format, I based my article on a similar wiki article published for Phoenix Lodge. Pheonix, like Palatine, is also a very old Lodge in Sunderland, England.
- The Pheonix article has fewer, but similar Masonic references. But, unlike my article, it does not reference an independent source, i.e., the Lane’s records, held in the Digital Humanities Institute at the University of Sheffield, England.
- Note, I’ve also added a reference to an article published in the Sunderland Echo and Shipping Journal, titled A City Shaped By Masons, 6 May 2009, as a further independent source.
- So, as the main body of my article follows the same logic as the Pheonix article, with enhanced referencing, it should be published.
- If the issue is the section titled Notable Members, then if this is preventing publication then reluctantly, I’ll remove it.
- However, the references and links I’ve used in the Notable Members section are very similar in nature (i.e. Masonic) to those used throughout the wiki published article titled ‘List of Freemasons’.
- So, if judged on an equal basis then this section should also be published. But, if necessary, I will remove it.
- I whole heartedly support the requirement to establish notability and believe, for the main body of the article, that I have met the independent source requirements with my references to the University of Sheffield’s records, the Beamish Hall Museum article (ref the section titled THE BEAMISH HALL, paragraph 3, starting line 7) and the additional Sunderland Echo article.
- Also, the Masonic references I’ve used are no different to references used on other wiki pages.
- So, I hope you’ll agree that if the same logic, used elsewhere in Wikipedia, is applied then I meet the requirements for publication.
- Thanks again, Stev201961 (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Stev201961,You stated our history. So to claim you have no conflict is disingenuous. Until you clarify your relationship with the Lodge, there will be no further discussion between us. You are welcome to visit WP:AFCHD for an alternative opinionSlywriter (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid argument on wikipedia.Slywriter (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Slywriter, since we last talked, I’ve worked extensively to add more independent references, majority are articles written in various Newspapers held in the British Newspaper Archive at the British Museum. My article must have the Wiki record for the most references 😊.
- Regarding COI, clearly, I’m a Freemason, a member of Palatine Lodge and proud to be part of a worldwide organisation that makes a huge contribution to society and charity, often without publicity.
- If I weren’t a freemason and member of Palatine Lodge, then I wouldn’t have the knowledge to write about its long history.
- I strongly suspect most of the wiki articles relating to Freemasonry are also written by Freemasons. Likewise, most of the articles written about golf will have been written by golfers! Nothing wrong with that!
- I quote, “Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopaedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on ALL branches of knowledge”. And I’d hope without censorship or prejudice.
- To be clear, I am not promoting Freemasonry. My only motive is to add to the compendium of knowledge available to current and future generations.
- Given the extensive referencing in my article are you happy for me to resubmit it?
- Thanks and regards Stev201961 (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- You can re-submit but I'd give the odds at 90% that it is promptly declined by a reviewer. Your sourcing is 95% primary sources from the lodge and frankly, Wikipedia doesn't care what a subject has to say about themselves or those connected to it. If the wider world doesn't care to write about it then it is not notable under wikipedia guidelines. Adding a few newspaper articles does not change the fact that the article is over-reliant on primary connected sources and what little content you are getting from secondary sources is marginal at best.
- As to your affliation, compliance with WP:COI is not optional and you need to make a declaration on your user page about the article.
- And declining to publish a written history of a lodge, culled from its own records, written by one of its members is not censorship, it's the core of wikipedia policy. And I suggest not using that line again, it won't go over well.Slywriter (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your response.
- Regarding your comment,
- “Your sourcing is 95% primary sources from the lodge”.
- This is not accurate. Primary sources are now backed up by Independent secondary sources. Independent sources include those from the Digital Humanities Institute, held at the University of Sheffield, several historical articles from the British Newspaper archive held at the British Museum and articles from other non-related Masonic websites. So, to be more accurate my sources are 50% primary and 50% secondary independent sources.
- Also, regarding your comment.
- “If the wider world doesn't care to write about it then it is not notable under Wikipedia guidelines”
- This can’t be true. Surely what’s important is to capture what the world doesn’t know about and educate. Today’s Wiki featured Article is Uroš Drenović. Does the wider world care to write about Uroš Drenović? No, but that doesn’t mean an article about him shouldn’t be written and feature in Wikipedia.
- Likewise, the wider world may not care about Palatine Lodge No 97, but it has been an important part of the Northeast of England’s social history and should therefor feature in Wikipedia.
- Thanks, and regards, Stev201961 (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Stev201961, first a reminder that compliance with WP:COI is not optional. Second, yes it can be true. As shown by the numerous independent sources used in Drenovic article. Wikipedia operates under verifiability with more stringent requirements for organizations. We are not here to be a repository of statements, based on documents produced by your organization. If an independent party researches the lodge, then we would cover what the independent party found noteworthy. As it stands, the draft is not an article that meets Wikipedia's standards and your continued attempts to insist otherwise are futile. You are welcome to re-submit and hope another reviewer sees differently, though I will document my concerns on the draft or you can seek additional guidance at WP:AFCHD or the teahouse Slywriter (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Syywriter, I've included a potential COI to the talk page and re-submitted. Regards. Stev201961 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Stev201961, first a reminder that compliance with WP:COI is not optional. Second, yes it can be true. As shown by the numerous independent sources used in Drenovic article. Wikipedia operates under verifiability with more stringent requirements for organizations. We are not here to be a repository of statements, based on documents produced by your organization. If an independent party researches the lodge, then we would cover what the independent party found noteworthy. As it stands, the draft is not an article that meets Wikipedia's standards and your continued attempts to insist otherwise are futile. You are welcome to re-submit and hope another reviewer sees differently, though I will document my concerns on the draft or you can seek additional guidance at WP:AFCHD or the teahouse Slywriter (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Slywrite, I’m disappointed that you have added the comment at the head of my published article saying that “This article relies too much on references to primary sources”.
This is not true. My recent reviewer suggested that I strip out all the primary and focus on secondary sources which I have duly done and to the reviewer’s satisfaction.
As I’ve stated before, the secondary sources I’m using are from
The University of Sheffield, well respected and an independent institution.
The British Newspaper archive held at the British Museum. The British Museum is up there as one of the most respected institutions in the world, and most definitely independent.
The Newspaper articles I’ve used as references are from a range of publications, published in different cities throughout the UK (therefor different authors) and published over a span of, getting on for, one hundred years.
So, unless you can give me specific examples of the references you consider to be primary and why, then I’d ask that you remove this banner. Thanks, and Regards Stev201961 (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Draft: BADVOID
Hi, thank you for fixing up and helping with the Draft:BADVOID article.
I appreciate the help.
Please let me know if you think there is anything else that needs fixing.
GenesisGSE (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
April 2022
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Russian cruiser Moskva, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Drmies, excuse me? So speculation from political leaders is now valid content? cool. And a reason was given.Slywriter (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Draft: Paul Henteleff
Regarding your comment that the author is "using palliative care sources to buff up the article without clear connection to subject," could you identify which listed sources do not have a clear connection to the subject? Is there a way to reference articles that makes the connection clearer? E.g. adding page numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E4E5:F00:852:2B9C:3839:5720 (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Simple. Which sources actually discuss the subject of the article? Many of the sources are on the topic of palliative care and make no mention of the subject.Slywriter (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, every source mentions Paul Henteleff and many of them are mainly about him. Can you point to a specific source that does not mention his work?2001:8003:E4E5:F00:E8E3:E95C:8011:1E2B (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Article on Lemuria
I saw that you removed some of the content that had been added to the article on Lemuria by a student in a course I am teaching called "Archaeological Myths and Realities." I think the student was not appropriately clear in discussing the mythology of Lemuria versus the scientific reality of Lemuria, presenting some material in a way that made it appear to be fact when it was not. I put some comments on the talk page for the article and would like to explore the possibility of editing the article in such a way that it include some content on the esoteric mythology of Lemuria. This would be appropriate given the sidebar for Theosophy, which makes it clear that this article has ties to occult beliefs. Let me know what you think. Hoopes (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hoopes, I think the material could work covering its mythology. The concept seems due. On the edit, it was written a little too real and they had been previously reverted by another editor and re-added the material without comment. The second edit, paleo place, seems to be definiton of paleo place with unclear connection to Lemuria, though I suspect the source does explain Lemuria in that context with more information than was provided. Though same issue of presenting the material as fact in wikivoice.Slywriter (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Slywriter, I completely agree. The idea of a "paleo place" is problematic for me simply because that's not a well-known concept. Furthermore, Lemuria is an imaginary (or at best hypothetical) place, not a real one that once existed. What makes things complicated is that there is a separate article for Lemuria in popular culture that I think should be merged with the Lemuria article. The content that was added, removed, and re-added without comment is material that may be better suited--with rewrites--for that other article. There needs to be a clear distinction between Lemuria as a 19th-century scientific hypothesis (albeit disproved) and as an imaginary place in Theosophical, New Age, comic book, and other contexts. Hoopes (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
V.Smile article
I noticed that you've removed the games list among other things off of the V.Smile article on this site. This edit has caused the article to be less useful as you have also removed other info. If you don't remember, here's the edit of yours here. V.Smile Lorenzsandi (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, completely unreferenced. As is most of the article, which comes across as a promotional piece not an encyclopedia article.Slywriter (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Review of draft article: Draft:Department of Homeland Security Outstanding Unit Award
Thank you for your review of this article. I wanted to come and explain the rationale for notability since that is why it was declined. I am generally aware of notability guidelines as an experienced WP editor (although I made a segregated new account for use of creation of this article, which is now causing me problems). In this case, you suggest merging the content into United States Coast Guard, but it would actually be more appropriate in Awards and decorations of the United States Coast Guard. You will notice there, though, that every single award listed there (other than obsolete DOT ones) have their own articles. I've reviewed Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments#Creation of articles to make sure I don't fall into that trap, but I believe me saying there is precedent is sound... All U.S. military awards appear to have inherent notability, having existed since 2004. The only difference here is that this award is new, and its absence would be altering from existing precedent. Thanks for your consideration, I am reluctant to seem like I'm trying to argue the point, and I appreciate the time you volunteer to make WP better. Castawayed (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Castawayed, Is there a discussion that shows consensus of inherent notability? As WP:GNG must be met by any article, except a few narrow carveouts. In fact, a quick look at some of the other awards show many suffer from the same deficiency and do not actually meet the standards for a Wikipedia article. Also 2004 is a long time ago and community had enacted more stringent policies since then, so I am not sure the inherent notability would stand up in an AfD if held today. Though that's why I ask about community discussions to see if that consensus has been re-affirmed in recent years Slywriter (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's a good question. I'd like to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals but I wanted to let you know so it doesn't give the wrong impression that I'm trying to brigade the issue or anything. Castawayed (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Castawayed, no concerns there. Generally better to get some community input.Slywriter (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
New page reviewer granted
Hi Slywriter. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
- Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
- You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
- If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
- Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed, Rosguill talk 00:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Draft:AM Stereo and Digital AM in North America
What do i have to do to make this list notable enough for mainspace? RobiH (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- RobiH, There is already the incomplete List_of_radio_stations_in_the_Americas. As you can see from there that this material is generally broken down into much smaller articles that can actually be useful to a reader, rather than an indiscriminate list.Slywriter (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
This list could be appropriately could be placed at Lists of radio stations in the United States#Other lists (if i strip off the canadian and mexican stations). RobiH (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)