Coffee
This user may have left Wikipedia. Coffee has not edited Wikipedia since 3 March 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Merry Christmas!
editHello Coffee: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, Coffee!!
editHello Coffee: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor Talk 04:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
A goat for you!
editCause you are! Happy new year, Coffee.
Drmies (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, re: closing this RM. I'll note that nobody actually opposed the move. (The only other contribution to the discussion by @Andrewa: was listed as a "comment".) Per WP:RMNOMIN, the article should be moved as requested. 162 etc. (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I think it was a good close. Obviously had I !voted it would have been oppose. There was no case for a move. Citing individual sources proves nothing, as I said. I was hoping that some valid argument would be provided one way or the other, that is why I relisted. You didn't seem to understand this. We needed to move on.
- Had I closed the RM rather than relisting, I would have been obliged to discard your nomination rationale, and close as not moved. I did not want to do that, as I thought it would have invited a move review, but I think it would have led to the same result eventually. Andrewa (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- @162 etc.: Wikipedia discussions, including RMs, are not tally votes (WP:NOTVOTE). Andrewa's comment was clearly in disagreement with your reasoning for attempting the move, and his arguments were equally sound. Your response was to repeat what you had already stated with different wording, meaning the discussion did not progress towards a consensus. With the lack of additional participation, after the relist, it is a clear no consensus close. Feel free to open it up to a further review if you do not agree with this assessment but given my nearly 15 years of experience here, I don't see this close being overturned. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Andrewa:@Coffee:Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm a bit puzzled at this one. The "citing individual sources proves nothing" argument seems strange to me, as the entire concept of WP:COMMONNAME is to use the name most used by reliable sources. I know that Google searches vary for each user, but mine shows 6 times more results for "Dmitri Baskov" vs. "Dzmitry Baskau" (153k vs. 2490.) Why should we prefer a transliteration that is demonstrably less common? 162 etc. (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Your Google searches are certainly relevant. But that's a different sort of evidence to just citing individual ghits.
- Not sure what to recommend. Move review is IMO unlikely to overturn the close, and is not the place to introduce new arguments. I would be inclined to invoke Andrew's Principle and leave it as is were it not for the BLP issue.
- In many ways the horse has bolted. But that should never prevent us from improving Wikipedia.
- I would like to hear more from the closer. It was a good close IMO, but perhaps a reopen would not hurt. If it does happen, suggest you listen more carefully to what others (myself in that case) are saying. From experience, that is not your strong suit. And this is not to raise any behavioural issue, just advice intended to make your (valued) contributions even more productive. Andrewa (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- @162 etc.: I have zero issue with a new RM being opened. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Andrewa:@Coffee:Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm a bit puzzled at this one. The "citing individual sources proves nothing" argument seems strange to me, as the entire concept of WP:COMMONNAME is to use the name most used by reliable sources. I know that Google searches vary for each user, but mine shows 6 times more results for "Dmitri Baskov" vs. "Dzmitry Baskau" (153k vs. 2490.) Why should we prefer a transliteration that is demonstrably less common? 162 etc. (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
in friendship
editin friendship |
---|
Thank you for being around! - Happy new year, in friendship! - One of my pics was on the Main page (DYK) and even made the stats. - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Always a true pleasure to see you here. I hope your 2022 is full of adventure and love! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks you, both happened on vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. I have a great singer on DYK whom I heard, Elena Guseva, and wait for a Recent death appearance of Georg Christoph Biller whom I saw in action. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
frozen |
---|
- now continued + my joy - more on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- stand and sing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I took the pic in 2009. It was on the German MP yesterday, with the song from 1885, in English Prayer for Ukraine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Ulas Hayes
editHello Coffee. I saw your name at the top of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement participant list and was wondering if you would be willing to help sort out an article I came across. It's not written in an encyclopedic way, the history is full of usernames (some blocked) that suggest a close connection with the subject, and the referencing isn't great, but it looks like it might be salvageable as an article if some editors with subject matter expertise spent some time on it. What do you think? 28bytes (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- @28bytes: I'll take a look at it today or tomorrow and let you know what I think! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- @28bytes: After a thorough review of books and newspapers during the time period he was alive, I see essentially no national scale coverage of him. There are some small quotes from him regarding things other than himself, and there are some small passing mentions (of him listed with others), but that's about it. Even regional coverage is lacking. If the person who created this article knows of sources out there that aren't online that's the only way I would see this passing GNG. As it stands, I unfortunately think this should go up for AFD. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- OK, thank you for taking the time to dig into it, I appreciate it. 28bytes (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- @28bytes: Anytime! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- OK, thank you for taking the time to dig into it, I appreciate it. 28bytes (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
King William's Town/Qonce RM
editHi Coffee,
Regarding your close, could you clarify how you considered the Google Scholar results, as contrary to your close these demonstrate a current preponderance of sources that are stating King William's Town in reference to current events? BilledMammal (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: I found particular strength in this argument by @Amakuru:: "Local usage has changed, and that should predominate over "Google scholar" results, which do not reflect common usage, particularly on the ground." Essentially, while those academic sources hold some weight, a city is not something that is of purely (or anywhere near mostly) academic importance. So, there isn't a clear policy backed reason why we should be considering scholarly sources over news sources to determine what the current common name is for our readers. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Can you explain how you found strength in that argument; specifically, what policy it aligned to better than the alternative arguments that allowed you to find strength in it, particularly in the context of the unrebutted claim that WP:MPN requires "common global usage" rather than local? BilledMammal (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: I understand you have a very firm opinion about this, and you clearly believe your reading of policy is the most correct (if I was in your position I would likely be of the same mind)... and I have explained above how I found strength in Amakuru's argument. My close is simply a summary of the community's view during the discussion, on the policies at hand regarding this given article, nothing more. - From what I saw in the discussion, the WP:MPN claim was rebutted (by multiple users). However, you held the viewpoint that scholarly sources should be weighted very heavily as the metric to measure "common global usage". But others who came to the discussion, even after you made that point, mostly did not agree with that take (and pointed to the broader Google searches as evidence). - The majority of participants' views, that the criteria for WP:NAMECHANGES had been met (via reliable sourcing), was not so unreasonable as to be discounted and weighted disproportionately against your and Colin M's view of MPN & scholarly sources (I only mention you both, as your arguments were the strongest against moving the article [others' hinged on the overall usage, disregarding the requirement for weighting sources after a name change, and so therefore were not found to be backed by policy]). Indeed, me doing so would have surmounted to a WP:SUPERVOTE. So, while you definitely made very strong points, the WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS was not in support of your view of policy. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- If I have understood you correctly, you are saying that you discounted the "oppose" !votes apart from mine and Colin M's, as they did not provide suitable evidence to support their position? And that when you did this, you found that counting all of the "support" !votes against the remaining "oppose" !votes allowed you to determine a consensus?
- I will note, however, that I am not seeing any rebuttal of the claim that we are required to consider global, not local, coverage? BilledMammal (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- No, I did not conduct a head count, but I did discount voices or opinions that did not have a policy backing them (this is specifically what is to be done to determine consensus in all cases). When all of that was said and done, I came to the determination I have explained. Yes, global coverage is one of the requirements of MPN, but your view of what substantiates global coverage is not the only one I had to take into consideration. This is what I just explained above. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear, I didn't mean to imply any impropriety in how you determined the result after you weighted; whether by a headcount (which is permitted, once weighting has been applied) or by other methods. What I am asking for clarity on is how you weighted and who you weighted?
- Thank you for clearing up the global coverage question; I believed you had assessed on local coverage, based on your quote of Amakuru, but based on what you have said that is not the case. BilledMammal (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- I know you're not trying to be difficult, but I honestly don't know how to be any clearer in explaining what arguments I did and didn't weigh. I don't particularly feel warm with having to do an itemized list of everyone in the discussion, as head counting is not how I read consensus... it's about the strength of the arguments, as viewed by the participants and as weighted against policy. At this stage, I don't believe there is an argument presented I haven't addressed. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'll try to be a little clearer with what I am asking. From what I understand, you discounted most !votes by those opposing the move, such as Tobby1's, on the basis that the evidence they provided wasn't suitable - and that seems like a reasonable decision. However, you didn't appear to do the same for the !votes supporting the move who had similar issues with their evidence. For example, P.I. Ellsworth merely asserted that there are "many, many books, news articles and scholarly sources that use the new name "Qonce"" (not most, but many), without providing evidence for this, and with many aspects of this assertion being disproven later in the discussion - it would seem to me that that !vote, as well as similar ones, would also need to be discounted. BilledMammal (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- If your question is: do I believe that P.I. Ellsworth's views (and similar ones) were not backed by policy, and should be discounted? The answer is no. The arguments made by Ellsworth and others, asserting that the necessary coverage had been met (using links to google searches [which the commenting participants indicated they had reviewed] and weighting more recent sourcing), and that such sourcing need not include purely academia, are entirely within a reasonable reading of policy (indeed, nowhere on MPN or otherwise is it stated that only a Google scholar search may be used to determine "global coverage"). This is much different than those who misunderstood what COMMONNAME required when dealing with recent name changes, and who were essentially arguing an entirely invalid position that disagreed with current policy. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- I would note that the claim they have reviewed them is dubious, given that they asserted that the Google Scholar and Google Books results supported the move, rather than opposing it as was later proven, but that you for clarifying. BilledMammal (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- If your question is: do I believe that P.I. Ellsworth's views (and similar ones) were not backed by policy, and should be discounted? The answer is no. The arguments made by Ellsworth and others, asserting that the necessary coverage had been met (using links to google searches [which the commenting participants indicated they had reviewed] and weighting more recent sourcing), and that such sourcing need not include purely academia, are entirely within a reasonable reading of policy (indeed, nowhere on MPN or otherwise is it stated that only a Google scholar search may be used to determine "global coverage"). This is much different than those who misunderstood what COMMONNAME required when dealing with recent name changes, and who were essentially arguing an entirely invalid position that disagreed with current policy. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'll try to be a little clearer with what I am asking. From what I understand, you discounted most !votes by those opposing the move, such as Tobby1's, on the basis that the evidence they provided wasn't suitable - and that seems like a reasonable decision. However, you didn't appear to do the same for the !votes supporting the move who had similar issues with their evidence. For example, P.I. Ellsworth merely asserted that there are "many, many books, news articles and scholarly sources that use the new name "Qonce"" (not most, but many), without providing evidence for this, and with many aspects of this assertion being disproven later in the discussion - it would seem to me that that !vote, as well as similar ones, would also need to be discounted. BilledMammal (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- I know you're not trying to be difficult, but I honestly don't know how to be any clearer in explaining what arguments I did and didn't weigh. I don't particularly feel warm with having to do an itemized list of everyone in the discussion, as head counting is not how I read consensus... it's about the strength of the arguments, as viewed by the participants and as weighted against policy. At this stage, I don't believe there is an argument presented I haven't addressed. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- No, I did not conduct a head count, but I did discount voices or opinions that did not have a policy backing them (this is specifically what is to be done to determine consensus in all cases). When all of that was said and done, I came to the determination I have explained. Yes, global coverage is one of the requirements of MPN, but your view of what substantiates global coverage is not the only one I had to take into consideration. This is what I just explained above. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: I understand you have a very firm opinion about this, and you clearly believe your reading of policy is the most correct (if I was in your position I would likely be of the same mind)... and I have explained above how I found strength in Amakuru's argument. My close is simply a summary of the community's view during the discussion, on the policies at hand regarding this given article, nothing more. - From what I saw in the discussion, the WP:MPN claim was rebutted (by multiple users). However, you held the viewpoint that scholarly sources should be weighted very heavily as the metric to measure "common global usage". But others who came to the discussion, even after you made that point, mostly did not agree with that take (and pointed to the broader Google searches as evidence). - The majority of participants' views, that the criteria for WP:NAMECHANGES had been met (via reliable sourcing), was not so unreasonable as to be discounted and weighted disproportionately against your and Colin M's view of MPN & scholarly sources (I only mention you both, as your arguments were the strongest against moving the article [others' hinged on the overall usage, disregarding the requirement for weighting sources after a name change, and so therefore were not found to be backed by policy]). Indeed, me doing so would have surmounted to a WP:SUPERVOTE. So, while you definitely made very strong points, the WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS was not in support of your view of policy. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Can you explain how you found strength in that argument; specifically, what policy it aligned to better than the alternative arguments that allowed you to find strength in it, particularly in the context of the unrebutted claim that WP:MPN requires "common global usage" rather than local? BilledMammal (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Howl at the Moon Piano Bar
editIf I may ask, is there a reason why you relisted the requested move discussion for Howl at the Moon Piano Bar? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Article
editI believe it was you Mr or Ms Coffee that changed the edit there was no need for a war, hell you even took off where the guy was born and where he went to school even though there are various interviews all over television and the internet that tells you where he was born what sports is played...now I'll give you that wikipedia edits or not my strong point I'm but better with broadcast media... there is probably a higher power that I can go to in this regard but since this seems to be your thing and you're so adamant about having your version even though it's not complete. I will digress you have at it, enjoy! Nancy O'Dell (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Nancy O'Dell: Our policies on biographies of living people is very strict, and this has been explained to you on your talk page. You were told to provide reliable sources for your repeated additions of net-worth to the article, and you were told to provide an email to verify your ID so that we can be certain Nancy O'Dell is not being impersonated. Unfortunately, you have done neither. If you have sources to provide please feel free to do so, but please be aware your account will need to be restricted until we can confirm your identity. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well restricting me is fine..not really sure what that means or entails but like I said I'm more of a broadcast journalist anyway so.. Wikipedia is not my thing I'll let you Wikipedia "experts" have at it.. As far as sources go there are plenty of sources to tell you where people were born where they went to school and what their particular net worth is which is something I know about since that's what it's something I do and talk about so.. like I said the Wiki world is yours have at it enjoy!!! Nancy O'Dell (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Nancy O'Dell: if you know of plenty of sources then there should be no issue in providing them. Links to those sources is all that has been requested; merely saying sources exist does not allow readers to verify our content. I welcome you to read through our help content until an email has been sent from you wherein we can verify you are actually Nancy O'Dell. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well restricting me is fine..not really sure what that means or entails but like I said I'm more of a broadcast journalist anyway so.. Wikipedia is not my thing I'll let you Wikipedia "experts" have at it.. As far as sources go there are plenty of sources to tell you where people were born where they went to school and what their particular net worth is which is something I know about since that's what it's something I do and talk about so.. like I said the Wiki world is yours have at it enjoy!!! Nancy O'Dell (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
A goat for you!
editJust saw your user talk page pop up in my watchlist and thought to myself "I haven't seen Coffee around for a while" and thought I'd pop in to say hello.
EvergreenFir (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: Hello! I hope you are doing well. I’ve been in and out of activity over the past year as I’ve had several external projects I’m working on. How have you been? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm doing okay. Busy with the semester starting and all, but otherwise can't complain. Our family has come through the pandemic relatively unscathed, so that's a bonus. Hope things are well for you and yours! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: That's fantastic to hear! Good luck with the semester; I'm sure you will do well! My wife and I are doing well, thank you for asking. Been busy (as always) with some projects off-wiki, so have been off and on the past few months, but always good to see you around! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm doing okay. Busy with the semester starting and all, but otherwise can't complain. Our family has come through the pandemic relatively unscathed, so that's a bonus. Hope things are well for you and yours! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Garuda Indonesia Flight 035
editHi Coffee -- wanted to ask about your closure at Talk:Garuda Indonesia Flight 035. While I agree that it would have been helpful to get more participation, I'm not sure the sole oppose !vote provided a reasonable rationale to reject the request. The proposal, and the !support vote (mine) noted that the proposed name was both the accurate and common one. The oppose asked if there was evidence for that, was provided it, and did not provide any counter evidence for a different name. It would be one thing if the oppose !vote was demonstrating counter sourcing to look at, but this was not the case. Appreciate your thoughts, thank you! --Yaksar (let's chat) 18:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Yaksar: The issue for me, as someone impartial to this, is there (as you said) was very limited participation over ~45 days... and there wasn't a source comparison done in the discussion. The voice in opposition presented a reasonably strong issue that a sole source did not prove one or the other was the most WP:COMMONNAME, and there wasn't necessarily an adequate response to this (with linked evidence [i.e. Google search result hits etc]). So, I felt it would put me in the position of making a WP:SUPERVOTE to close it any other way than no consensus. I did choose to say it essentially can be immediately reopened, but I would also be open to undoing the close and relisting a third time (to provide time at least for a source comparison, etc, to be done). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! That's a fair explanation. I would still say, even if neither side fully demonstrated a common name, the remaining argument of "one was the name of the airline and one was not" remains unrebutted and a fairly common sense rationale (barring the oppose !vote providing sourcing showing otherwise), but I do get not wanting to make what could be seen as a supervote. It looks like the nominator has since been banned (what a world!), so I may just make it a separate nomination down the line.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Yaksar: That sounds like a good path forward. Thank you for your understanding! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! That's a fair explanation. I would still say, even if neither side fully demonstrated a common name, the remaining argument of "one was the name of the airline and one was not" remains unrebutted and a fairly common sense rationale (barring the oppose !vote providing sourcing showing otherwise), but I do get not wanting to make what could be seen as a supervote. It looks like the nominator has since been banned (what a world!), so I may just make it a separate nomination down the line.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.
- AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
- The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.
Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Bob Proctor
editPremature Removal | |
Hi,
I was correct in being the first person on Wikipedia to list Bob Proctor as deceased and sent you a screenshot of the email from his organization. I would like whatever credit for correctly editing his biography, please. Thanks, Chuck TheChuckDay (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC) |
- (by talk reader) @TheChuckDay: Please read WP:TRUTH. Also, your edit is forever in the article's edit history, so don't expect any further acknowledgement of your mistake from our over-worked, under-appreciated volunteers. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Wishing you all the best
editI'm sorry to see that you have decided to part ways with Wikipedia, but there comes a time when we must move on and carry on with a new chapter of our lives. Wishing you all the best, my favourite morning beverage! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm late to comment because I wasn't ready to write anything as I didn't want to believe the note I received. I second what k6ka has said. I will thoroughly miss having you around on-wiki but look forward to staying in contact elsewhere. You and your contributions were valued more than you can know; you
wereare a damn fine editor, a pleasure to work with, one of the most policy-versed editors I know, and you always did what you believed was best for the project; I don't think we could ask for anything more of a volunteer. I am sorry that things turned out the way they did here and that you found yourself in this position. That said, I am also happy/excited for you on the new journeys you are taking off-wiki. Keep in touch, TSD TheSandDoctor Talk 03:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC).- I also know that it was one of your missions to get MLK over the FA bar. I hope that this happens soon and invite anyone interested to participate. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
editYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
editSeven years! |
---|
Coffee, I'm sad having to miss you, but do what's best for you. I began translating Unita Blackwell into German yesterday, in memory, but wish I had done it sooner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
editYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Fifteenth Anniversary on Wikipedia!
editHappy First Edit Day! Hi Coffee! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! Chris Troutman (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC) |
Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
editI'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.
Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
editSince your retired, you might not get this for a little while, but
Hey, Coffee. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC) |
Also, thank you for your service to the US through the Air Force. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
editYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
editYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
editYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Unita Blackwell
editThinking of you, I translated your first GA into German, and it's on the German main page today, pictured: "Unita Blackwell war die erste afroamerikanische Bürgermeisterin in Mississippi." (14 May) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
editYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment
editYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
editHello Coffee,
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 804 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 852 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)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
editYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
editGood article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. |
New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
editHello Coffee,
- 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: 12587 articles, as of 02:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot
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) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
editNew 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 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
editYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
editHello Coffee,
- 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) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
editYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
NPP message
editHi Coffee,
- 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) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
editYou were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive
editNew Page Patrol | October 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 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022
editHello Coffee,
Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.
Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.
Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.
Suggestions:
- There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
- Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
- Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
- This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.
- Reminders
- Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
- If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
- Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
editHello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
editIn case you read this.
I'd like to thank you very much for creating User:Coffee/Holidays. It's currently my main holiday wishes template, in memory of you placing it the years before.
And while I'd normally not template you with a template you have created yourself, for this reason, I'll use it here too.
I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.
All the best, and hoping for a return. One happy day. :)
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023
editHello Coffee,
- Backlog
The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.
- 2022 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!
Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)
New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js
to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js
Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.
Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.
- Reminders
- Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
- There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
- Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Change of the name of "Trinamool Congress"
editHello, I have seen that you have changed the party name of the "All India Trinamool Congress" to "Trinamool Congress in January 2022 . But that is not the right name. The right name is All India Trinamool Congress, which has been clearly mentioned in their official website of https://aitcofficial.org/ . Kindly check and rename it as the name mentioned in the website immediately.
Thanks & Regards. VNC200 (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive
editNew Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023
editHello Coffee,
Backlog
Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.
Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.
Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.
You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).
Reminders
- Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
- There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp connect on IRC.
- Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
New pages patrol needs your help!
editHello Coffee,
The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.
Reminders:
- There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
- Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive
editNew Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
New pages patrol newsletter
editHello Coffee,
Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!
October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.
PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.
Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.
Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.
Reminders:
- You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
- Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
November Articles for creation backlog drive
editHello Coffee:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive
editNew Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
editHello Coffee,
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
- You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
- Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
editHappy First Edit Day! Hi Coffee! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive
editNew Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MfD nomination of Talk:January 2018 United States federal government shutdown/Current consensus
editTalk:January 2018 United States federal government shutdown/Current consensus, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:January 2018 United States federal government shutdown/Current consensus and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:January 2018 United States federal government shutdown/Current consensus during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive
editNew pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Cristina Fernández de Kirchner
editCristina Fernández de Kirchner has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)