How did you verify that H B Walikar is a Vice Chancellor of a University unless you know him? It is written there he is but the link is broken. Help me.
How did you verify that H B Walikar is a Vice Chancellor of a University unless you know him? It is written there he is but the link is broken. Help me.At-Bankikodla (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @At-Bankikodla: I just added an archived copy to the citation. Now it can be verified. Aithus (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not FoundThe requested URL was not found on this server.Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. At-Bankikodla (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, Aithus. @At-Bankikodla: The edit made by Aithus added a link here. You need to click on the "Vice–Chancellor" link in the references. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not FoundThe requested URL was not found on this server.Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. At-Bankikodla (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Amirhossein Mahmoodi
Thanks for the response on Draft:Amirhossein Mahmoodi. It's likely the same socks, but since it was posted back in January 2022 and not actively worked on since then, it's just got another month or so before G13 will kick in. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- @AngusWOOF: Unfortunately, since we're both humans (though I'm not as sure for you, given your username and signature
) and we both edited the draft, it'll be another six months. Before the two of us, the last human edit was last week. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The User (The Bloodhound) Unblock
Dear Sqrqaz, Honestly, i fully agree with the user himself before you accuse him of sockpuppeting you should gather enough evidence like he said (Compare IP Addresses) and stuff like that.
Thank You :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:CB00:264C:CE00:3015:D34F:782A:3F02 (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thankfully, someone who can do such comparisons (and another before her) gathered your evidence. Block evasion isn't going to help your case, Bloodhound. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Reason for deleting draft: Denis Yip
Hello Sdrqaz, I have receive a message earlier asking me to provide more secondary and reliable sources of draft: Denis Yip. Hence, I changed and added more sources from medias to support the data inside and re-submit the page for review. However, the draft: Denis Yip's content was all deleted earlier today. May I know the reason for that? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Biu (talk • contribs) 04:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, Michael. Sorry about my accidental reversion of your comment. I deleted Denis Yip on Friday (3 June) because you had added
{{Db-g7}}
to the page. This template, as the link shows, is meant to be added to a page when an author requests its deletion. However, as the template was added with incorrect code, another user helped you fix it. I assume that your addition of the template was an accident, so have restored the page now. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
redirect confusion
Hi! Thanks for your help with AN/PVS-8's redirect. I was actually in the process of reverting it and adding the RfD when I saw your changes. Thanks, I'm still figuring this stuff out. And thanks for the tip about discussion tools in preferences. Did not know those beta features were there.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late response, Jasonkwe, and thanks for letting me know. You may want to install Twinkle to make things easier in the future, since you accidentally added your notification to his userpage instead of his talk page. Discussion Tools is one of the best products by the Foundation in years, I think. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Sdrqaz: Oops, thanks for pointing that out and thanks for the recommendation! I did see that that editor is likely retired at this point but I wanted to do it correctly. Working with wikitext still feels like when I took a basic class in Java and was trying to write a program in notepad: possible to do? Yeah. Error prone because I'm seeing just bare text? Definitely lol.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Jasonkwe: I saw that too, so I guess the chances of their adding to the discussion is relatively low. I've been there with wikitext too – I need to use the "show preview" button quite often. I noticed that you've discovered VisualEditor. Hopefully that makes things easier, even if it isn't available on talk pages like this (though Discussion Tools does have a visual mode). Sdrqaz (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Sdrqaz Yeahh, I like visual editor for the cleanness it lets me see the text I'm working on but it's not great for interacting with some stuff like infoboxes or citations. I like list defined citations because it keeps most of the citations out of the way but visualeditor doesn't let you use list-defined citations. I know that visual editor kinda does that for you (keeps the citations out of the way) but it just doesn't feel as intuitive as source view *shrug. So, I switch between visualeditor and source as needed and use preview a ton like you. And ever since I lost a bunch of unsaved edits on an article, I just copy paste the entire article over to one of my sandboxes and edit it there where I can save periodically. Not sure if there's a better way but it kinda works. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Jasonkwe: I don't believe I've ever used list-defined references, though I have tried VisualEditor but never really got used to it (my last five edits with it go back six years, to the same month of my registration). Losing work due to the internet is the worst. For copies to sandboxes, you need to attribute such copies ("copied from Example article; see its history for attribution" is fine, I'd say). I tend to copy stuff to a notepad app instead of an on-wiki sandbox, but I see why people do it (especially since you said it's hard visualising the edits). Sdrqaz (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Sdrqaz Yeahh, I like visual editor for the cleanness it lets me see the text I'm working on but it's not great for interacting with some stuff like infoboxes or citations. I like list defined citations because it keeps most of the citations out of the way but visualeditor doesn't let you use list-defined citations. I know that visual editor kinda does that for you (keeps the citations out of the way) but it just doesn't feel as intuitive as source view *shrug. So, I switch between visualeditor and source as needed and use preview a ton like you. And ever since I lost a bunch of unsaved edits on an article, I just copy paste the entire article over to one of my sandboxes and edit it there where I can save periodically. Not sure if there's a better way but it kinda works. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Jasonkwe: I saw that too, so I guess the chances of their adding to the discussion is relatively low. I've been there with wikitext too – I need to use the "show preview" button quite often. I noticed that you've discovered VisualEditor. Hopefully that makes things easier, even if it isn't available on talk pages like this (though Discussion Tools does have a visual mode). Sdrqaz (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Sdrqaz: Oops, thanks for pointing that out and thanks for the recommendation! I did see that that editor is likely retired at this point but I wanted to do it correctly. Working with wikitext still feels like when I took a basic class in Java and was trying to write a program in notepad: possible to do? Yeah. Error prone because I'm seeing just bare text? Definitely lol.Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Request for assistance at Accenture and Julie Sweet articles
Hello, Sdrqaz! A while back you helped review a request of mine for the Accenture article. If you are still interested in reviewing edit requests for Accenture, I recently posted this request at Talk:Accenture and this request for company CEO Julie Sweet. I'm submitting these requests on behalf of Accenture, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have on those articles' Talk pages. I appreciate your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll try to get to them, but have not done any COI edit requests in a while. I'm also aware that the 198-request backlog at Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests stretches back over a month, albeit it is not as bad as it was months ago. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Redirect
Hello. It was created by mistake. It's totally wrong, random. If you don't see how redirect may be spam - do you want me to create 5 or 10 more random redirects like given example? Eurohunter (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Eurohunter, as you're probably aware (you've been editing longer than me), Wikipedia has a different understanding of spam. Pages can only be deleted as spam if they are unambiguously promotional. Given that you and RHaworth have been adding and removing deletion templates to both Party in the house and Fiesta in the house for the last four years, I think it's fair to say that a speedy deletion in this instance would be controversial. As I told you, Redirects for Discussion is probably best if you want them to be deleted. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Sdrqaz: "do you want me to create 5 or 10 more random redirects like given example?" isn't enough clear? Eurohunter (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I'm constrained by policy in what I can delete. I advise you to make your case at RfD. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Sdrqaz: "do you want me to create 5 or 10 more random redirects like given example?" isn't enough clear? Eurohunter (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Page disappear from search engine
Dear Sdrqaz
I have amended the page Denis Yip according your instruction, adding reliable secondary source for the content. The page was able to search in Google last week. However, when I search it again this week, the page disappear from the search engine. May I know the reason? Thank you so much~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Biu (talk • contribs) 03:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Michael, I didn't give you any instructions: it was someone else. Denis Yip has disappeared from search engines because it was marked as unreviewed by GeoffreyT2000; you will have to ask him why that happened. I believe it will become eligible for search engine indexing at the end of the month. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Should REVDEL be mentioned as a possible remedy for DEADNAMING?
Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion regarding WP:DEADNAMING and WP:REVDEL at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the A1 CSD nomination I made
Oh hi, I see you reverted my edit on Durgeshwar Lal. I see that I made a mistake in adding a CSD for that article, but in my defense, the article was very illegible to even understand before you made it (thankfully) more understandable. The guy just put the words 'durgeshwar lal currently sitting MLA of purola vidhansabha uttrakhand' and thought that was good enough. In retrospect, I should have put a 'needs copyediting' tag before deciding to delete it. Thank you. SpodleTalk 01:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Spodle, A1 should only be used when you cannot figure out what the subject is. It certainly wasn't amazing writing and had issues with capitalisation (I know it's frustrating), but the version at creation certainly had enough for me to figure out what was going on. A1 is written so that it can rarely be used (even the title comes into consideration for context). Thank you for the message, Sdrqaz (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Hello Sdrqaz,
- 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:
Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 11145 pages according to DatBot as of 14:00, 29 August 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)
IP getting spicy after block
Hello there! You blocked User talk:2601:248:8200:D240:359B:D99:8C85:3866 earlier this evening, and they've been getting pretty unwound on their talk page. Any chance you could please remove access for the duration of their block? Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 04:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Tony Fox: You left that just as I was reblocking them
. Given their block log, I should've blocked them without talk page access pre-emptively, but you live and learn. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
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. |
(t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Betty White
Hello, Sdrqaz,
I see you have encountered our vandal from Louisville, Kentucky. He has been traveling over June throughout the Southern states but posting the same vandalism during his trip. For female celebrities, he talks about their genitals and rape, for male celebrities, he talks about what monsters they are and how they ravish young women. It's the same content over and over again now for at least two years. It's typically targeting Hollywood actors and actresses but for a while, he was going after 19th century U.S. Presidents, posting the same content that has to be revision deleted. He/She watches protection and I've seen him return the day after page protection expired. It's really exhausting as he both goes back to older targets, like Betty White or John Travolata, as well as targets new, unlikely personalities. I wish there was a way to do a range block but it would be a lot of different ranges and I think we would take out much of the city of Louisville. At least, we have very vigilant page patrollers who revert the edits pretty quickly after they are made but it can go on quite a while before an admin gets around to protecting the article. The longer the protection, the better, if it is imposed for 3 days, he'll just start up again on day 4.
We also have a similar vandal who targets Bollywood actresses, says terrible things and their IP always geolocates to Bhubaneswar, but, luckily, I haven't seen them around lately. Liz Read! Talk! 00:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed I have, Liz (sorry for the late reply). I believe I first encountered CalebHughes in July 2021 at our article on Anthony Hopkins (now suppressed, but the protection request I made at the time lives on). They're capable of accomplishing a lot of disruption in short periods of time, though that is sometimes reduced when someone calls for help at #wikipedia-en-revdel connect. I'm personally unconvinced that some of the Betty White material needs deletion – quite a lot of it is similar to what a "regular" vandal might put. Much of the 19th-century president stuff shouldn't really need deletion either, given that they're long-dead. Speaking of punctuality, Caleb as 2600:1700:4854:800:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) has been making edits at the end of June for three years running, with zero edits at other times. I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the Bhubaneswar vandal – I know of one from that country who spends their time spamming death threats in articles, but they're usually dealt with swiftly. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the two pages I tagged as G10
Hi. The page that you deleted under the G3 rationale, I tagged as G10 because it said to the reader that they were sus (suspicious, which can be leveraged as an insult) - and I thought that an attack page was a page that is specifically designed to attack the subject or any other entity (I thought the reader was an entity). Another page which was not deleted I tagged under a G10 rationale told the reader that the person who wrote this page was better than them, which I also thought was an attack on the reader (refer to previous point I made about the first page). Can you please clarify this (is the reader an entity or not)? Thanks. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 04:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's an interesting question, Train of Knowledge. It's probably worth first saying that the line between G3 and G10 is a fuzzy one, where many pages that are deleted as G10 can also be deleted under G3 and vice versa. That being said, I consider G10 to be a generally higher bar than G3, because G10s need to
"disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose"
(emphasis mine).Looking at User:FuzzyAnimal2/sandbox (the first of the pages), I know of the background behind that term, but I think that"sus"
is very weak and the "target" being the reader (unlike someone specific, like me) means that the potential for feeling disparaged or threatened etc is very very low. That felt more like regular vandalism than something that can be considered an attack page. As for User:Strawberry5754/sandbox (the second of the pages), I view"Hi i'm better than you"
to be more a boast than an actual attack against the reader. However, I believed that it would be too bitey to delete it as unambiguous promotion, as it felt like a simple joke (I could say that the first one was one too).To answer your question at the end, I would say no. For me, an entity needs to be relatively well-defined, while "the reader" is not (the reader could be anyone with internet access, really). For pages that you believe attack the reader, I think tagging it with {{db-vandalism}} would be fine, unless you believe the attack to be particularly egregious (like accusations of murder, paedophilia, or usage of slurs). Please ask if there's further clarification needed. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)- I understand now. Thanks :) Train of Knowledge (Talk) 07:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, don't mind the revert at all, but see:
[1] , I feel they should learn to properly format images rather than having others clean up after them. Best, Jip Orlando (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, Jip. Thanks for letting me know and for leaving them a message. I can understand their initial edit – adding a picture when one wasn't there means you have fewer points of comparison – but replacing an existing one with another should be easier. We were all new once ... Sdrqaz (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Possible Error
Hi, I am ICBP. I saw this edit of yours. You had also pinged me to the edit as well. What did you mean through the edit? Why did you remove the wikiproject tag? Is there any problem with the redirect? Itcouldbepossible Talk 02:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Itcouldbepossible, I removed the tag because it implied that it was created through AfC, when it was not. As I wrote in the edit summary, I created the redirect and I am not an AfC reviewer. Since such tags appear on the talk pages of articles and redirects created through that process, it'd be misleading for it to be there. I assume that you intended to create that redirect yourself? To answer your last question, I don't think that there are any problems with it. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Hard blocks
Please don't do hard blocks on IP addresses. It often causes collateral damage, and you can't judge when there's too much collateral without having access to the CU tool. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @NinjaRobotPirate: It is not reasonable to ask someone to forgo all hard blocks on IP addresses. Given 134046076, I assume you're talking about 105.105.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). For that range block, I did ask multiple times for a CheckUser to help me assess collateral, but none were available. Given CafeGurrier66's fourteen tagged accounts and the clear disruption logged-out going back weeks (12 July and 13 July reports), I judged that a week's block was within discretion (while conscious of how wide a /16 is) and noted that it was a hard block at SPI. That report was archived by a CheckUser. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've been a CheckUser for five years, have done thousands of hard blocks, and routinely assess collateral damage. I am telling you that even if you didn't this time, you will eventually cause massive collateral damage. In some countries or some ISPs, there are dozens of people on the same IP address. And that's just a single IP address, not even an IP range. You can't even get the CU tool to work on some IP ranges because there are so many editors that the data overloads the WMF servers. This happens sometimes on a IPv4 /24. You can't know this, so I don't blame you for thinking, "Oh, it's fine, I'll just use my discretion. What's the worst that could happen?" I am telling you, from years of experience, that what will happen is massive collateral damage – the kind that stops thousands of people from editing Wikipedia. I used to be even harsher in my range blocks than I am now, but I got angry emails from people who couldn't edit. I blocked what was clearly a webhost, and it turned out to be municipal wifi for London. I blocked what was obviously a proxy, and it turned out to be a service used by multiple multinational corporations to manage their workforce. Even as a CheckUser with those years of experience I mentioned, I get this stuff wrong, mostly because I exercised discretion and didn't check for collateral damage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- That /16 hard block was extreme and was too much (or at the very least, I should have posted for a more specific review at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations § Quick CheckUser requests instead of leaving it to the archiving CheckUser). But following your comments I have felt unable to enact hard blocks against single IPv4 addresses, even where they have a long history of using both accounts and IPs. Take the latest iteration of CalebHughes today at Russell Crowe. My anon-only block was converted into a hard one because both LuK3 and I know that Caleb has a long history of causing great disruption with accounts as well. Favonian's block yesterday was also converted into a hard block by Zzuuzz. Can't I enact limited hard blocks against such disruption? Sdrqaz (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- (tps) In general I advise to do hard blocks for CalebHughes, yes please .. assuming common sense, not range blocks, and that it's not longer than about a week. This is because CalebHughes usually intends to get a soft block and then use sleeper accounts on the same address. For anything more complicated, or longer term, I'm more than happy to advise. I can't think of many similar cases off the top of my head. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- That /16 hard block was extreme and was too much (or at the very least, I should have posted for a more specific review at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations § Quick CheckUser requests instead of leaving it to the archiving CheckUser). But following your comments I have felt unable to enact hard blocks against single IPv4 addresses, even where they have a long history of using both accounts and IPs. Take the latest iteration of CalebHughes today at Russell Crowe. My anon-only block was converted into a hard one because both LuK3 and I know that Caleb has a long history of causing great disruption with accounts as well. Favonian's block yesterday was also converted into a hard block by Zzuuzz. Can't I enact limited hard blocks against such disruption? Sdrqaz (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've been a CheckUser for five years, have done thousands of hard blocks, and routinely assess collateral damage. I am telling you that even if you didn't this time, you will eventually cause massive collateral damage. In some countries or some ISPs, there are dozens of people on the same IP address. And that's just a single IP address, not even an IP range. You can't even get the CU tool to work on some IP ranges because there are so many editors that the data overloads the WMF servers. This happens sometimes on a IPv4 /24. You can't know this, so I don't blame you for thinking, "Oh, it's fine, I'll just use my discretion. What's the worst that could happen?" I am telling you, from years of experience, that what will happen is massive collateral damage – the kind that stops thousands of people from editing Wikipedia. I used to be even harsher in my range blocks than I am now, but I got angry emails from people who couldn't edit. I blocked what was clearly a webhost, and it turned out to be municipal wifi for London. I blocked what was obviously a proxy, and it turned out to be a service used by multiple multinational corporations to manage their workforce. Even as a CheckUser with those years of experience I mentioned, I get this stuff wrong, mostly because I exercised discretion and didn't check for collateral damage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete and Move the Page
Please do not delete and move the page of Washington Elementary School and Roosevelt Elementary School, When it's not a allowed without permission.
From: JonHenryLao
Since 01:55, 24 July 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonHenryLao (talk • contribs)
- I deleted Washington Elementary School (Hawthorne, New Jersey) because it was a redirect left behind after it was moved to draftspace. Given that it has now been recreated in the mainspace and is now at AfD with what seems to shaping up to look like a "redirect" result, I don't anticipate deleting it again. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Barron Trump
Okay, I can see that a close of Redirect doesn't support a Delete, and you did a Redirect on the article. I have reported the gaming of the title at WP:ANI. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- I know that this is probably too late, Robert, since Bishonen has topic-banned them, but the content at the standalone articles (Barron W. Trump and Barron Trump Knauss) is quite similar to the family article. Given that they weren't warned on their talk page following the 17 July redirecting, this seems more like good-faith (disruptive) behaviour than malicious gaming. Maybe I'm stretching my AGF a little too much here, given that Paulistafan hasn't ever used a user talk page or a mainspace talk page, but I thought it was worth saying. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- User:Sdrqaz - I was aware that the text in the individual articles is the same as in the family article. However, the editor in question was trying to work around the decision that his name wasn't a stand-alone article. It doesn't matter, to me, whether he was being good-faith disruptive or bad-faith disruptive. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sdrqaz, your ping here made me go look, and I see Paulistafan has violated the topic ban many times. Likely enough they don't know they have a talkpage. I have blocked for a month, with a note in the block log that I hope will help them discover their page. If they respond to me in a reasonable way, I'll unblock right away. Btw, the new page they have created, Ana Daniela Hernandez, is problematic in several ways, and they created it right into mainspace (now moved to draft). I feel we do need to stop them creating biographies, especially about those egregious "first daughters". Bishonen | tålk 08:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC).
- Thanks for looking into this, Bishonen, and for the commitment to unblock. They seem to edit in bursts every few days, but haven't edited in six – hopefully they'll log on before the block ends to see your message. I certainly don't love the sourcing in that draft. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- That is the eternal problem, isn't it? It's a lot harder to shut the door on a good-faith disruptor on Wikipedia. A vandal reported for adding "poop" to a couple of pages will be blocked soon enough. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sdrqaz, your ping here made me go look, and I see Paulistafan has violated the topic ban many times. Likely enough they don't know they have a talkpage. I have blocked for a month, with a note in the block log that I hope will help them discover their page. If they respond to me in a reasonable way, I'll unblock right away. Btw, the new page they have created, Ana Daniela Hernandez, is problematic in several ways, and they created it right into mainspace (now moved to draft). I feel we do need to stop them creating biographies, especially about those egregious "first daughters". Bishonen | tålk 08:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC).
- User:Sdrqaz - I was aware that the text in the individual articles is the same as in the family article. However, the editor in question was trying to work around the decision that his name wasn't a stand-alone article. It doesn't matter, to me, whether he was being good-faith disruptive or bad-faith disruptive. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you
Hi Sdrqaz - hope you are well. I've just seen your comment on the Arbcom case and wanted to thank you for posting it. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Lugnuts, when I left my first and second comment, I had a feeling that it was too late at 5–3. I'm sorry and saddened that it ended like this and also find it hard to believe your parting statement – given the scrutiny you've been under for years, the likelihood of such systemic violations slipping through is small. I don't believe you had malicious intent when working here. There's a lot of hurt that caused that statement, and I know that you can't reply here, but there are other methods. Take care, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Commonwealth Games boxer articles
Hi, thanks for reviewing the A7 nominations of the articles about the boxers at the Commonwealth Games. At the time of nomination, these articles were one line stubs that merely suggested participation. I delved into the guidelines to see if these articles met notability requirements and I decided under much deliberation that they didn’t meet WP:NBOXING. Clearly this was wrong, however this seems to be a mistake I keep making, and to be frank it’s a little embarrassing. Do you have any tips about how I can help avoid tagging articles incorrectly in future? I only want to get better at this. Osarius 06:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Osarius, sorry for the very late reply: this has been a poor, poor month with regards to responsiveness for me. I would argue that those articles (Phiwokuhle Mnguni, Cynthia Ogunsemilore, and (Elizabeth Oshoba) meet NBOXING because they
"have represented their AIBA affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament"
, with their affiliations here. Even without that notability guideline, I think the key thing to remember about A7 and credible claims of significance is that it's a very low bar. Meeting a criterion for speedy deletion means a page can be deleted on sight by any administrator; this is why the criteria are generally written quite conservatively, to the frustration of many new page patrollers."x is a boxer" usually fails A7 because there's nothing significant being asserted. Even with such a seemingly-obvious case, I would still do a quick online search of the article's name to see if there's any other information available (NPPLinks.js makes that a quicker process); maybe the article's writer is still working on the page. I would say that simple participation in high-level international tournaments is usually enough to clear the "credible claim of significance" bar. Up until an RfC this year, for example, association footballers who had played in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues were considered notable (that didn't even require for it to be an international match). As tedious as it may sound, I would advise reading the relevant criterion when considering whether to tag a page – the actual text at WP:CSD, not just the summary in the Twinkle menu. While Twinkle as a tool is great (though I would say I used it more as a non-administrator), the summaries it gives are slightly simplistic and often don't capture the exceptions and nuances listed in the actual policy text. I very often re-check the criteria when I delete pages, even when I've deleted pages under a specific criterion over and over again, because I don't want to make mistakes. Caution is crucial. If you think that someone may disagree with your speedy deletion tag, use a PROD or the AfD process instead.It's important to remember that editors are human and will make mistakes (Q3). The fact that you've come here and asked for advice (even if that advice is coming far too late) with the desire to improve is undoubtedly a positive thing. Keep it up, and please ask if you want any clarifications or have further questions. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
Hello Sdrqaz,
- Backlog status
After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
- Coordination
- MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
- Open letter to the WMF
- The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
- TIP - Reviewing by subject
- Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
- New reviewers
- The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
- Reminders
- Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
- If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing
{{subst:NPR invite}}
on their talk page. - If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
- To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
NPP Award
![]() |
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar | |
For over 100 article reviews during 2021. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC) |
NPP message
Hi Sdrqaz,
- Invitation
For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Blanking talk page during active block
Hey. Not to have the extra discussion on the other IP user's page, but The Blade of the Northern Lights said that while dealing with a SOCK a few days ago. Is there any page/policy you could point me to, because I am not sure which admin is correct. lol Elijahandskip (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, Elijahandskip. In my message I linked to WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK, which doesn't allow the removal of declined unblock requests of current blocks (FYI The Blade of the Northern Lights, since you've been mentioned). Speaking from a personal perspective I don't really like the guideline – if a user makes an unblock request that is declined and then gives up on appealing and wants to blank their talk page, forcing them to keep that on their talk page seems unnecessary and not worth fighting over. If they want to make a fresh unblock appeal, by all means restore the prior conversations and unblock appeals to make it easier for the next reviewing administrator, though I'd suggest that any administrator worth their salt should be able to look through the talk page history to figure out what happened previously. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
User:Belorussian Dino
Hello, the CSD U5 was declined as Wikipedia does allow limited biographical information on a Userpage. However this new editor has a link to his/her Twitter page. Per WP:UP#PROMO we don't allow promotional links, but are links to personal social media acceptable? Other administors have deleted pages for having these links so I'd just like some guidance before tagging again. Blue Riband► 14:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Blue Riband, below the box at WP:UPYES it states that
"You are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page"
. I think a link to one's Twitter profile (or other social media) would be considered that. The current issue with U5 is that a few administrators are interpreting it in an overly-bitey manner and using it as a catch-all for [thing I don't like in userspace]. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)