User talk:Nosebagbear/Archive 3

for your newly cleaned up page. :D Good to see your comments at AfDs.

DBigXray 22:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: I've long felt that my talk page had an excess of class, and that it prevented my sarcasm from suitably manifesting itself on Wiki. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• haha, would love to see more of your witty side around. also I suggest using Auto
  WP:Archive, thats a menial job best left for bots to take care of, anyway its your call. cheers. --DBigXray 22:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The comment above was due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tishnagi and yes i did read the translation. :DDBigXray 11:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @DBigXray: indeed! Though this AfD's most recent comment that I've just replied to is its own interesting argument Nosebagbear (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to improve the Eva Bartlett page. You know my views on the page as it stands as I voted for deletion, and I am aware that you believe it can be improved by editing the current content. I don’t think your edits address all my concerns (e.g. making a claim about removal of YouTube videos which is not supported by the source provided) but every little bit helps so thanks. Burrobert 14:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Well as Eva is clearly notable, people should be re-writing (probably in a controlled fashion or the page's editing is going to erupt, messily) since she obviously warrants an article. The source does actually cover the youtube video removal, but you need to click through to the full pdf - it's not in the executive summary. I suspect the calmer members on "each side" need to work on the content (which certainly does need some rebalancing) to make it in acceptable form - cheers for the notice, and have a gander yourself to fix the various bits :) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: Thanks for pointing out the YouTube reference. Perhaps the link needs to be updated to point to the full report. My first instinct is to try to improve the page by gradual edits but in this case I get the feeling it won’t work.

Burrobert 15:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I was thinking about whether the link has to be shifted. The same link is used elsewhere, so I suspect I'll need to delete that specific instance and put in a new one. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The

]

Thanks for helping me understand

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Of all the people I worked with creating my first article, you were the most helpful. At times, I felt like other editors didn't bother to listen to my questions and concerns. However, I felt you exemplified the guidance in WP:EQ. Because of your efforts and approach, I am a much more confident and engaged Wikipedian. Thank you very much for your effort! Jonkatora (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply ]

@

Hi Coryphantha - I thought it would avoid restarting your page conversation if I pinged you on my own talk page.

As you are clearly aware, you weren't in the wrong in the slightest on this Australia issue - neither on the initial cause, nor on this ridiculous "worldwide English somehow means saying Australians don't speak English". Well done on staying calm (again) while facing a fair lack of civility. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nosebagbear Thank you for your kind words, after all of that it is well received. I grew up and spent most of my adult life assuming all Australians spoke English and only English, obviously it's a sore point for others however, I'm not sure why. I apologized for it (although this could have been resolved on the article's talk page by discussion and consensus not through uncivility), my point of view is not necessarily wrong but a different way of looking at it I suppose. Thank you again, I was actually considering giving up and putting an indefinite break template on my talk point. I'm still not sure though, this is a rough place! I really do just want to make WP a better place and get along with people. :) Coryphantha Talk 15:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coryphantha - I was rather baffled as well, I wasn't aware that insulting Australians by indicating that they didn't speak English was a thing. Wiki can be overly rough - and so long as people aren't swearing etc it's very rare to see any blowback for incivility. I've been fairly quiet on the content creation side recently, so I don't run into the page brigade issues, so other than some unhappy vandals and the occasional flare-up in AfD, I don't see too much of it. That said, I do need to do some more work in actually working on the front end of the guide, as without people doing that it makes everything else rather pointless. Please don't leave us - calm, helpful, editors are already thin on the ground :) Nosebagbear (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nosebagbear I didn't know either, it was a total surprise to me. Maybe it was just something to be annoyed about, I work with someone who finds reasons to pick at others about but can't take the blame for their own mistakes. Somehow I'm still on their good side, but only if I keep my mouth shut which isn't always easy. I've had good luck with some of my articles getting through review and I have another one almost ready (fingers crossed). I am undertaking counter vandalism training, but maybe I'm biting more off than I can chew, I don't know. I got through the last flare up, this will blow over. I can't believe how many editors there are though. Maybe just a couple days away will do me good, I do appreciate your support! :) Coryphantha Talk 15:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for your support! Phew, WP can be a rough place! Coryphantha Talk 15:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth 03-01-1998

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Nosebagbear, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018^[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Margoschis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation

if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

— Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Had to start and respond with an account due to tech impediments.

A considerable amount of the information the user claims demonstrates that the songs in question bear notability are quite trivial:

or Drake came along. The source they cited for that within the article doesn't even actually support the trivial comparison being made. Its just a link to a nondescript lyric sheet for songs from the album.

Similar themes follow for "

Robocop" and "Coldest Winter". Believe the nomination for "Say You Will

" is fairly thorough enough. But to reiterate what I stated before, much of the info included on the page would be suitable on a page dedicated for the concert.

Moving on, in regards to

Acoustic hip hop

, it reads like a fan page. Its a if someone took notice of the fact that several artists they've listened to use acoustic instruments for their songs and decided to string together a page for it. I've rarely if ever come across the term apart from a passing, casual description of a hip hop song that sounds acoustic. People frequently use this site as a platform to more or less make genres happen.

Hi, @Ascribe4: - two things to start: firstly, please remember to add ~~~~ at the end so I know who to respond to.

Secondly, you need to clarify where the issue you're referring to is taking place - if it's a discussion we're having (or a close I made) elsewhere please point out the AfD - I participate either via !voting or closing about 15 AfDs a day so I need a pointer :)

I was a little unsure about your final paragraph - they don't currently have any participation in their AfDs, and so I was wondering if there was a specific purpose in asking me about them?

Sorry for the lack of any answers - I didn't want to guess and assume where you wanted an answer and risk giving the wrong one. Get back to me and I'll hopefully succeed. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was trying to provide a general response to the various questions directed.

To clarify the last paragraph: the article for the subgenre

Acoustic hip hop article is essentially just some made up genre by yet another random single-edit user with little to no verifiable sources to support it. Ascribe4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Ascribe4: - sorry, I'll need more of a pointer - general response to the questions where? If it's general to more than one AfD at least give me a couple or I can't put the discussion in context

I understand your points that you're trying to make as regards the latter AfDs, but I'm not participating in them (I may, but not at this point). You need to be careful about pointing out an AfD to someone not currently participating in it - it's viewed as canvassing and frowned upon (in the sense that if you have 5 friends you can "win" 80% of AfD discussions) Nosebagbear (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairness Project

Appreciate your creating and leading the Wikipedia page for TFP. I want to flag that we had a number of campaigns last week, I wouldn't want to influence any writing about it, so will leave it at that.

--Jonathanchad (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)j[reply]

Hi @Jonathanchad: - thanks. I had assumed that TFP would have participated in some of the ballot campaigns and had added it to my list of tasks to cover, I should cover it in the next week or two (that will let some more articles be written about the successful proposals, which will help the writing). Nosebagbear (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathanchad: - took a little longer than planned, but I finally added the material a couple of days ago. I suspect another year or so and I (or someone else) will have to resort it if the sections get too big. I have also recommended the article for "Good Article" standard, though that will take a few months at a minimum. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please Lock some high schools for me if you can.

Hello, I know that I have been messing with some wiki pages but I am seeing a severe problem here. People have been changing the names and texts on my local high schools and lots have been offensive to others and some have directly bullied my friends. If you could lock these pages for a while that would be great. The high schools are Mount Notre Dame High school, Moeller High School, St. Xavier High school, and Ursuline Academy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reeeemanwatchamean (talk • contribs) 21:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Reeeemanwatchamean: - I have submitted a protection request for St Xavier's, someone else has requested protection for Moeller & Mount Notre, there are lots of Ursuline's so you'll need to tell me which one is the issue. There's a bit of a backlog so it may take an hour or two (or 1 minute, depending on who notices first) for the protection to filter through.

Messing with articles is a fairly poor way of helping since it leads to you being blocked fairly quickly which makes it harder to get people to listen to you. If you need some help in the future with people editing articles etc have a look at

The Teahouse - it's got lots of editors who help newcomers. Obviously you can undo any vandalism yourself (if you don't add some yourself) but they can help with a more lasting issue. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Nosebagbear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursuline_Academy_(Cincinnati,_Ohio) that is the page and thanks a ton.

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Nosebagbear,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft page: Marina Jirotka

Hi - thank you very much for reviewing my draft article. I apologise for the copy-pasting - am new to this (clearly) and still learning the ropes. Very much appreciate you pointing me in the direction of the Teahouse too. I will revisit my draft.
thanks again Carolyn 09:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Octaviapink (talk • contribs)

@Octaviapink: - no problem, and apologies that the copyright template comes across as so cold - I'm also happy to answer some other questions you have, though the teahouse is usually pretty quick Nosebagbear (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear:I appreciate you removing the copyright-violation notices from the page history too. The current draft was written from scratch so should be more acceptable, I hope! Octaviapink 09:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Nosebagbear. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please let AfDs run for 168 hours plus

Having observed

@Djm-leighpark: - I do run a UTC clock (mainly to adjust for time-zones, but it serves this purpose too) - please do point out if I've under-7ed anywhere, since I'll need to check how I'm doing that. The "leave to 8/9" area I can concede makes sense in some set-ups, but not in others. In almost all cases where it does have significant validity to it I wouldn't be closing/relisting anyway since they would line up with other controversial aspects (and thus not suitable for NACCLOSE). Other comments on the editor's talk page are not applicable since I never issue a 3rd relist (agreed to be a non-non-admin no-go) nor do I revert relistings myself since it causes problems. In the one occasion where I have incorrectly done so (specifically, that I've noticed) I've apologised to an AfD admin and asked them to handle to avoid the knock-on issues.

Additionally, I would view it as more polite in the future if points could be made to me rather than a direction to another talk you've had elsewhere that may or may not have relevance. As one of my most active "small a" adminstrative areas I actually enjoy discussing issues with my closes/relistings, but directly relevant points or examples are needed if I'm to avoid future problems. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies ... no intention to upset you. I read it as someone pointed out you were under 168 hours on the other talk and claimed to be following your lead (if I red their comment correctly) ... and the one AfD I checked out you were under (assuming I can add up which I don't always). A couple of other times I raised this some were unaware of the UTC clock and I can appreciate it can help if your are not on or near GMT/UTC. A few bits of minor chaos on the AfD mentioned on the other talk not relevant to you ... beginning to do my head in some way. Best regatds Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am very thankful to you for guiding me with Draft: Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Saagri. According to your advice, I removed all copyright issued topics and added some more references to it. Again, A great thanks to you for helping me. I hope that you will always be there for me to help where I will need. God Bless You.Raja Atizaz Ahmad Kiyani (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I defer to you regarding the Mark Lindquist Law Career. (I have nothing to do with the Writing Career content.) There are a lot of threads involved here, and a lot of history.

BLP has particular NPOV sourcing standards that ARE MET in this article, but I've paid particular focus to the rulings of judges (as reported, as credible third-party reporting of any court determination is a requirement for a BLP). On that standard, the first three sections (based on rulings of either high courts or multiple judges) meet a bar that the last two sections (Wikipedia blanking and lying about cold cases) do not. However, removing ANY NPOV source from this page risks [false] criticisms that NP:POL is not met. It is met! What do you think if I boiled those last two sections into a few words with two citations, perhaps around some kind of "public image focus" section? Perhaps aggregating into the "hundreds of press releases" section somehow.

I can shorten this whole section but the rulings of highest bodies (state supremes, state bar) are central to democratic, neutral evaluation in ways I pray Wikipedia embraces. The subject had an enormous quantity of public visibility that was partly incompatible with his duties to the court as a lawyer. That's what offends the lawyers I've spoken to. He became the focus of award-winning investigative reporting. His ill-conceived legal choices set national precedents (at best) and jailed a citizen for 8 months without evidence (at ghoulish worst). Democracy calls for a continuum of information, with a bar met more and more strongly as stronger and stronger sources say it more and more clearly. If the subject's law career can be condensed and summarized further, I embrace the principle that the best sources need the greatest defense. The underlying reporters are great, but when they're citing high courts, that's greater. I am disturbed if Wikipedia doesn't prioritize embrace high court verdicts seen through the lense of independent, NPOV journalists as among the most valuable assessments of neutrality in point-of-view.

The reason I defer to you is for your expertise, neutrality, and apparent commitment to the documentation goals at issue in this BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 19:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcfnord: - hmm, that was a tad dramatic, but I'll attempt to give my thoughts.

So it's not necessarily that we disregard the sourcing strength of the high court rulings (they would be judged to be independent primary sources, which is a relatively rare combination - similar to journal articles), it's maintaining obediance to

no original research

. This means that specific facts can be cited from them, but no interpretation. So obviously they support "this was legal, this was not, this was allowed in etc etc" but unless the judge says "you were bad" etc, it can't be used in that sense.

When you say the last two sections (Staffer and credit) aren't met by non-NPOV sources what do you mean? I would say they are met. Where non-NPOV isn't met, mainly, is the fact that he has done positive things in his legal career etc, but in effect all the negative news about his non-writing career has been included, and the rest hasn't - rather than what is actually present is wrong. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

mcfnord sez:

Today I read the Wikipedia of a 4x cop-killer. People did not fault the page due to absence of nice words about the cop-killer. He is dead, so he's not a BLP. I would like to see BLP about notorious criminals, to examine the degree to which positive things they've done get found and included. Or the BLP of other politicians who got into trouble. Any names come to mind?

What I'm saying about the last two sections is that they do have NPOV sources, but unlike the other 3 sections, those NPOV sources aren't referencing even-more-NPOV court judgements. (And though they are about the deeds of a prosecutor, they don't involve legal decisions.) All 5 sections comply with BLP rules, but 3 of the 5 are rooted even more deeply in the important democratic mechanisms (and NPOV venues) of court rulings, which you call "independent primary sources". The rulings of these bodies seem most notable in my (naive) view.

So while "text messages could be evidence" is there in the source, it's sort of speculative and sort of less-NPOV than the rulings. Why speculate about some negative thing? I thought you'd agree. I have much to learn.

14 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.214.22 (talk)

@Mcfnord: - so long as the paragraphs have a reliable secondary source, they aren't obliged to add the actual court rulings (they can be, but there's no requirement for that to be the case) - their sourcing requirements are perfectly well satisfied. "Text messages could be evidence" is very Neutral (the key bit of NPOV), as it states the possibility of it without actually deciding one way or another. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

mcfnord sez:

I want to disagree with you here in some detail.

About the text messages as evidence, the plaintiff can use the text messages to wallpaper her office if she likes, but until that resource drives a verdict, it's not as valuable to Wikipedia. Maybe I think that based on my verdicts focus. The BLPPRIMARY warning is interesting. I think it's a little mistaken. Court documents are all equal in this extreme warning. They say "don't use trial transcripts and other court records to support assertions about a living person." A trial transcript means nearly nothing, but a verdict of a trial is extremely different. In that case, we use a verdict whenever we say (as we do for Manafort) that so-and-so is a felon. That can Only be said because it's in a verdict. I've tried to take that further: If two judges say it, or a higher court, definitely YES examine that. At one point I found Wikipedia's citation template for court verdicts... so I think it's considered an A+ NPOV source, even in a BLP. But the way it works out, if a verdict is important, it hopefully gets exactly what the cautionary note does seek: an independent journalist covering the verdict.

I'm a newbie being a real Poindexter here, but I miss the other thing you rolled back. What do you think of this, instead:

"Lindquist's statements on Nancy Grace, a national television program, about the accused during a trial in progress earned a rare admonishment from the Washington State Bar Association." -- it really boils a lot of legalese down in incredibly neutral terms, yes? Maybe? This sentence is probably the most enduring in the topic, so it'd be great to just say it right and clearly and helpfully and succinctly one time.

I have pondered your view that well-researched content is generally worth saving. (Your page says you hold this view, and that it's a sort of political position about Wikipedia.) I think you saved the ML page because you do hold this view. But discussion points toward this section getting revised rather than removed, and I'm trying to boil down the somewhat complicated facts by setting the highest bar we can imagine for what facts are kept. That seems to contradict your general rule of thumb about nurturing all well-researched content. I do think the antidote to an attack perception will be a terser section that is even more scrupulously sourced and just plain well-written.

Also, I want to create a page about the Ted Natt First Amendment award. Should I start a new section on Ted Natt first? It's a relatively new award in journalism issued yearly by the AP in honor of this journalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 01:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcfnord: - so to answer your easiest question first, the Ted Natt one - yes, that's definitely the way to go, if it becomes giant it can always get its own article. Nosebagbear (talk)

I think trying to boil down the facts by setting an extremely high barrier, even beyond the high level we set for BLPs, is functionally removing information that the community-consensus has designated should be included.

So the current top line of that section (I assume we're not changing the bottom, or at least I don't think it should) "Lindquist's statements on Nancy Grace, a national television program, about the accused during a trial in progress triggered misconduct proceedings for risking the heightening of public condemnation. Linquist [sic - spelling to fix!] admitted accidental breach of the code of conduct and received an association admonishment." -

I'm not against a rephrasing of it, but it is definitely key to include that he admitted only an accidental breach, how about:

"Lindquist's statements on Nancy Grace, a national television program, about the accused during a trial in progress earned a rare admonishment from the Washington State Bar Association, Lindquist admitted an accidental violation of professional conduct rules." Nosebagbear (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nosebagbear,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my attempts to follow policy

Thanks for responding to my questions. I'm assuming your response here is final, but if you do wish to respond further, please do it by December 20. Thanks again, programmingGeek(talk, contribs) 02:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. This person, Cary Moon, maybe is an AfD. Would you nominate her? I could write up an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 01:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcfnord: - Not an immediately bonkers AfD proposal, so if you write me up an AfD proposal I'll post it. You will then need to "vote" (which the nom doesn't normally do). I may or may not cast a vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have a soft spot for local activists. I'd like to explore AfD for a person noteworthy for one event. What about Alex_van_der_Zwaan ? He should be folded into the coverage of the Mueller investigation. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 03:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BLP1E. Have a read of the three criteria and let me know what you think. There are then some other things that are worth considering if that barrier is crossed. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

OK! Check out my pitch for AfD: Alex van der Zwaan] is noteable only for one event (WP:BLP1E). He has no visibility before or after this event, because he's a low-profile individual (WP:LOWPROFILE). A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. This subject meets the three conditions for WP:BLP1E. While the investigation that caught him is significant to the history of the nation, this individual's role in it was minor. Because he is noteable only for one event, he now has a pseudo-biography (WP:PSEUDO), his name should just redirect to the event article.

I'm not sure what you're saying in the Alex van der Zwaan history, but I do think you're saying: Migrate what's noteworthy about his involvement in the investigation, so the case for deleting his BLP page is more straightforward. Is that right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 06:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the place where maybe the many details pertaining to the crime should appear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_brought_in_the_Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%93present)#Alex_van_der_Zwaan Does that sound right to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

BOLD redirect if you'd like - if no-one changes it back you can skip the discussion stage). Nosebagbear (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Eatcha (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eatcha: - Hi, not currently able to conclude my review, as I'm in the middle of nowhere for Christmas so won't have the reliable signal needed. I suspect another reviewer will get to it before I return to the land of broadband

Hello, Nosebagbear. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

TheSandDoctor ^Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{

subst:Xmas6

}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi Nosebagbear, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 11:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sarcasm fair play

Thank you for quality articles around h2g2, Fairness Project, for Rugby players such as Max Malins, for gnomish work, for reviewing article for creation and deletion, for manifested sarcasm ("awesome Bitch-slap edits"), - witty sloth, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{

subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b

}} to your friends' talk pages.

Coryphantha Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy Holidays! I randomly ran across Draft:Amini Cishugi and was just wondering about a few things. I noticed that the draft has been declined several times and then that you were involved. Notability appears to be an on-going issue which at first perplexed me but upon looking a little closer I observed some things and thought I would check with you.

• The subject is
  self-publishing vehicles and considered references to avoid
  . At the very least they would not be ideal for presenting notability. IMDb is used as a reference. The Barns and Noble source on Mon copain de New-York City ("My boyfriend from New York City") listing The true story of Anna Beckinsales Marie as the second of the literary saga, but this just lists an ebook that again circles to the self-publishing. A Google books search did not result in any hits. I tried to find information on "Anna Beckinsales Marie" (based on a true story) without any luck.

I can see that self-published authors can become notable. When I performed a Google search on Amini Cishugi it returned his facebook page, IMDb, Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Fandom (user created), and Music in Africa, that additionally presents the subject as a rapper. These returns don't appear to show notability even on the

web. I guess I could be considered a deletionist but actually I am for all notable inclusions. I do feel that everything in the world does not warrant a Wikipedia article. I am not trying to present arguments of "how you are wrong", as your user page lists you were the "staunchest of inclusionists" and now a "centre-inclusionist", but am just wondering your rationale, to "natter you on the subject". Otr500 (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Otr500: - I submitted it at the request of a user who was wondering why it wasn't being re-reviewed (which was because it hadn't been re-submitted). It's fairly rare for us on the help page to decline submission assistance requests, even if an article has been rejected, so long as it is only for notability reasons. The time lapse as well made me, somewhat lazily, at least feel it had a chance of getting through. Having now taken a more detailed look at its history, and lack of edits since, that seems unlikely but we shall see.

As such, I don't have a rationale for "why I think it was notable", as it was purely a procedural submission on behalf of another. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That does clarify things so thank you, Otr500 (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Brian Rosenworcel. Thanks! Nosebagbear (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Nosebagbear,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
DBigXrayᗙ 15:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hope the new year will bring more friendly debates and collaboration for us. Best wishes. Cheers --DBigXrayᗙ 15:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: - and to you, Sir! Nosebagbear (talk)

Happy New Year!

Some celestial fireworks to herald another year of progress for mankind and Wikipedia. All the very best , NNosebagbear,
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nosebagbear You negatively reviewed my article "Andrzej Sztando". You said that this submission appears to be taken from http://www.ue.wroc.pl/pracownicy/andrzej_sztando.html. You said that Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. But have you found that there is statement on this page: "All the content of this page is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0" ? This text is written in 3 places on this page. Is it not enough? Few minutes after your negative decision our "friend" Justlettersandnumbers deleted my article. It was 50 hours of work... Can you explain this situation and help me please? Can you undelete this article please? Thank you Iszop63 (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iszop63: - Hi there. I see that your draft has been recreated, which is good - as the admin noted, you're free to duplicate information from a site that uses that license, however you need to attribute it in-wiki which has now been done so it shouldn't reoccur. My apologies for not spotting the in-source license and adding it myself - the plagarism software we uses filters to the clashing details, so I didn't spot it. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: - Dear Nosebagbear. Thank you very much for explanation and for your instant answer and help. I really appreciate it. I'm sorry I forgot to add necessary attribute. I will remember it in the future. Could you please check if my article is now fully OK, and if I can resubmit it? Thank you once again and Happy New Year! Iszop63 (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]