User talk:UnitedStatesian/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please stop making revisions to this page. The only way that topic becomes a featured topic is if 10 of its articles are either featured articles or featured lists. Articles can't simply be removed as you did here to make it have 2/3 featured articles.--十八 10:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that all of the selected pictures at Portal:Frogs/Selected picture are identical. Not sure why this is the case, as each separate selected image page should have a different image, rather than the same one. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: don't know either, I'll check it out. Thanks for the heads up. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that you're working on it. While you're at the pages, would you mind removing the word "Description", and if present "Photo credit: name" for the image credit? It would really help out. At MfD people are complaining a lot about incomplete matters in portals. Regardless, since you're already working on the pages, it would save me the time of having to go and then make the corrections after you perform the fixes. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, please consider holding off on portal page moves. I just spent around two hours or so fixing Portal:Mesopotamia after your series of page moves of Portal:Ancient Near East to the Mesopotamia portal, and it's very tedious. The subpage formatting was all mussed up. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you please consider holding off on what appears to be your planned move of Portal:Library and information science? Again, other page moves you have performed is breaking portals. Sorry, and it's really not my thing to tell people what to do (hence the "please consider"), but I'm concerned at this point that in the process of breaking portals, you are also making them much more susceptible for nomination at MfD. Some users don't look into the history of portals at MfD, often only basing !votes upon what's immediately seen. I also don't want to have to spend hours performing fixes after hasty portal page moves. Hope you understand. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to inundate, but your page move of the main Creating Portal:Ancient Near East/Key topic page and its subpages to Portal:Mesopotamia/Key topic and those subpages has left all 21 entries broken, with redlinks reading, "Portal:Ancient Near East/Key topic/Layout". So, I'm going to fix this now too. Please stop moving pages around if you're not going to fix them in the process. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000:, thanks for cleaning up my mess; I unexpectedly got called away mid-cleanup or would normally have spent the hours needed to do it on all the portals myself (as I did previously for Portal:Business, Portal:Human sexuality, Portal:Mathematical analysis, several others), and will do it more quickly on any future moves. I think your concern is overdone, as none of the post-move Portals has been brought to MfD while the cleanup is in process. I still think moving to a broader topic is a good idea, and think a move to Portal:Libraries is the one that makes the most sense to do next. Are you ok with my doing that, along with all the necessary cleanup, given my above commitment? UnitedStatesian (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer for the portal to stay as Portal:Library and information science. It's a broader topic in this format, whereas changing the topic to the narrower Library portal will lessen it's scope. The proof is in the categories:

Select [►] to view subcategories

Library science

Select [►] to view subcategories

Information science

At MfD, people are more for the broadest scope stuff staying around, and are eagerly wanting to delete narrower scope stuff. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree; the categories are not a good indicator of scope. We have had libraries for nearly 3,000 years; both of the sciences are much more recent inventions. And information sceince overlaps with

WP:POG's prohibition of redundancy. I will eventually take it to MfD at its current name. UnitedStatesian (talk

) 11:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Nb. I have declined the G6 for the Portal:Libraries page again, as this is not non-controversial, in my view. I have commented at Portal talk:Library and information science, which is the preferred arena, so others can see what is occurring, and for the chance for others to opine. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Page moves

• I don't have time right now to address the Libraries matter. I have spent around 10 hours of my editing time now fixing the errors you have created all over the place by your page moves, and I am still finding more. You did not update the links on many, many of the pages, which I have been working on. At this point, your page moves are significantly disrupting Wikipedia. For example, at
  WP:MOVEPORTAL and have an administrator perform the page moves, because I will not be able to continuously spend hours fixing the hundreds of errors you have been creating. North America¹⁰⁰⁰
  14:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • OK. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I restored that Royalty cat at

Portal:Royalty, which most of the content is about. These page moves are also causing problems in that you're trying to change their topical scope too much, and way too fast. North America¹⁰⁰⁰

14:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

If Royalty is under Monarchy (it is) and Royalty's full tree can be viewed by clicking on the arrow next to Royalty (it can) what is the value of repeating the entire Royalty tree a second time? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Go look at the subpages I have been fixing. The content is mostly about royalty, royal subjects, palaces, etc. There is very little about actual governance. This is another reason why the page moves are very problematic. You're changing the topical scope, but not adding additional content to subpages about the more specific topic. Readers go to the page and it's full of information about royalty. It would be misleading to omit the Royalty category at this time per all of this. People will see only the Monarchy category and wonder why it is not particularly matching the content of the page, other than in a subcat amongst many. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at Portal:Monarchy/Featured biography, the subpages of which I am fixing right now per the page moves you have performed; a bunch of red links. The portal's focus is on royalty at this time. Changing the name does not change all of the content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Are you going to be able to fix the errors at
  WP:MOVEPORTAL, should I post the request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests? North America¹⁰⁰⁰
  14:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • That was not a problem created by the move: when it was at
    Portal:Frogs and toads it had a single selected picture repeated every time. UnitedStatesian (talk
    ) 14:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

All right. After spending hours fixing hundreds of errors you created, it's kind of easy to assume. At any rate, hopefully you're not angry or anything. You haven' thanked me or anything for the serious time I have spent to fix your errors. You don't have to, of course, it's just different. If it were me, I'd be thanking a person and helping out to correct my own errors. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I have been helping out too of course, and am happy to fix any errors you bring to my attention if you give me a chance to. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, thanks, just trying to let you know that I'm not much into ordering people around and all of that. Difficult to express exactingly in short notes, and I'm getting tired at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• After your page moves, almost all of the subpages listed at Portal:Zoos/Selected picture and Portal:Zoos/Selected article are broken with red links instead of content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done Note: Portal:Zoos/Selected article/3 never existed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Listing here to denote, in the event you can chip in to fix errors. At Portal:Human sexuality/Selected article, all of the listed subpages are broken after your page moves. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done Via a hack; I will go back and do the real correction within 24 hours. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Portal:Tamils/Selected article and Portal:Tamils/Selected biography: all broken. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• All broken: Portal:Hellenism (religion)/Selected biography and Portal:Hellenism (religion)/Selected article
  •  Done UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the tip. I noticed I'm now listed as having pictures from Wikimedia Commons. Is there a fix for this? Thanks Davidlwinkler (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Davidlwinkler: I don't know; suggest you go to Wikipedia:Help desk. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Much obliged. Thanks (talk) 08:28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hiya, I noticed you previously

UnitedStatesian, thank you both for starting this AfD and for ending it. I wasn't very satisfied with the portal, and the comments inspired me to do better and think about what I want this page to do. I would like to respond to your plea to not waste time on a portal.

Geophysics is a big subject. Every year, about 25,000 scientists attend the American Geophysical Union meeting, and the range of subjects is mind-boggling. Based purely on the number of articles, the subject would easily merit a WikiProject, but I doubt it would attract enough editors to make it thrive. For me, this page is a sort of personal WikiProject, a way of showcasing the breadth and depth of the subject. I don't intend to spend a lot of time on it, but I have some ideas for making it better. For one thing, it's fun to add all of the Geophysics news stories that Wikinews overlooks.

I recently helped Ansel Adams, a page with 550,000 pageviews per year, achieve GA status. I just raised a stub, Primulaceae, to DYK status because it has been around since 2002 and has sister pages in 56 Wikipedias. Next, I am working to raise Momentum to GA status - it is level 3 vital and has 630,000 views per year. But sometimes I choose to do something that fewer people will see because it gives me satisfaction.

And in the final analysis, if we were only motivated by practical concerns, would any of us be editing Wikipedia? RockMagnetist(talk) 17:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You are still moving portal pages around, but breaking previous, non-automated versions of the portals in the process. Then, nobody can change the portals back to the pre-automated format without having to first go through your errors. This really needs to stop.

• Portal:The Bahamas/Selected article - All Broken
• Portal:The Bahamas/Selected biography - All Broken
• Portal:The Bahamas/Selected picture - All Broken

I understand that you want the portals to be properly named, but breaking previous versions is not the way to go about it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000:: it broke because you reverted it to the multi-page version, NOT because I moved it: at the time of the move it had no errors. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Some users are actively reverting automated portals to non-automated versions, and broken pages significantly impedes the process, creating more work for those who are performing the reversions. If you aren't going to fix the subpages after page moves, then please post your requests to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, rather than leaving broken subpages in place. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

As I said before, It was a single page portal when I moved it, so there were no subpages for me to fix. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Construction has finished and it is ready to .... well..... ready to portal :) - Nolan Perry ^{Yell at me!} 14:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Nolan Perry: done, now at Portal:Autism. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello UnitedStatesian,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

• Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
• Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been

compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion

about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the

New Page Patrol talk page

.

News

• Following a
  WP:GNG
  .

Discussions of interest

• A
  request for bot approval
  for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
• There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
• What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, UnitedStatesian. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Hello, UnitedStatesian. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CASSIOPEIA was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Need

reliable

sources to support the content claimed

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of mammals of Prince Edward Island and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and
  may be deleted
  .
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

talk

) 01:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, UnitedStatesian! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the talk ) 01:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

	Ribbon of the Order of Nigeria
	Your username may denote "United States", but your contributions is a reminder to all that Wikipedia is indeed a global community. This is for saving the Nigerian portal from deletion. I want to also let you know that you're not alone in maintaining the portal. HandsomeBoy (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @HandsomeBoy: not quite saved yet, but hopefully that is the outcome. Thanks for your excellent work as well. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you changed the names of the pages in my GLAM page for the Harold B. Lee Library. I understand the desire to include punctuation in the URL, but please change it back. Changing the name changes the URLs, and I have directed students to the old URLs. I would prefer that they don't find broken links from those URLs. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Rachel Helps (BYU): sorry about that; I believe I have just now recreated all of the pages without the period so they work, but if you see any other issues, please let me know. Happy editing! UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I made the pages you missed into redirects. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion taking place as to whether Portal:Adele should be deleted at MfD.
You are being notified because you were a participant in the previous nomination discussion.
Thank you, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sea#Merger_proposal . Sdkb (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Would it save time to put the standard short description into {{Portal maintenance status}}, as has been done with {{Disambiguation}}, rather than adding it to each page? Using |noreplace would allow it to be overridden for individual portals. (Example in {{Disambiguation page short description}}.) Also, would Wikipedia portal be a better description? Certes (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The update is one click, so does not take that much time. And almost every portal has already had an SD added, so I don't think it is worth the effort to change the {{Portal maintenance status}} code. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Dona Nelson instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dona Nelson (artist) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and
  may be deleted
  .
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Drewmutt was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
  Draft:Grand City Properties
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and
  may be deleted
  .
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Jacobisq (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, in making this edit, there was no need to renumber task force 10 to task force 9 - the WPBannerMeta template (and its subtemplates) has no problem with gaps in the number sequence. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I notice that you tagged the page

While I appreciate the effort in your recent edit to the lead section of

Hi there. Can you explain whether this edit of yours was made by Durova's request, or for some other good reason? Thanks,

@

R to project space}}. Feel free to revert if you disagree with the blanking. UnitedStatesian (talk

) 03:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Updates: I've been focusing largely on the development side of things, so we are a lot closer now to being ready to actually start discussing deploying it and testing it out here.

There's just a few things left that need to be resolved:

• A bunch of language support issues in particular, plus some other release blockers, such as the fact that currently there's no good way to find any hubs people do create.
• We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have the extension documentation and some test projects, but we probably need a bit more. Also I need to be able to even find the test projects! How can I possibly write reports about this stuff if I can't find any of it?!

Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:

• Midpoint report is out for this round of the project, if you want to read in too much detail about all the problems I've been running into.
• WikiProject Molecular Biology have successfully set up using the old module system that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to change the content model to the right thing
  for the formwizard config to take. Ugh, content models.)

-— Isarra ༆ 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding your edit, on

@

Draft:Thurston Hopkins" in the edit summary. UnitedStatesian (talk

) 20:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, UnitedStatesian,

Please remember when you tag empty category with Twinkle to send a notification to the category creator. You can easily set this in your Twinkle Preferences for CSD C1 tags (look for "Notify page creator when tagging with these criteria:" and include C1). I was recently brought to ANI with a complaint from an editor who had created a category that he had not been notified before the category was deleted so this is the now standard procedure for all CSD tags if you haven't already been doing it.

Thank you for your hard work! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: thanks so much for the heads up; updated my Twinkle preferences just as you suggest. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello UnitedStatesian,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at

AfC

submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please

be on the alert

for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at

NPR

.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are

SPA

and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi @UnitedStatesian: Are you maybe interested in adding your own name in support on the climate change project proposal? Just wondering

Thanks! Cadar (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cadar: afraid I am stretched thin by other areas of WP. But I support your excellent efforts as a non-member! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi @UnitedStatesian: I do understand what you mean, I'm finding myself very busy these days as well. I haven't even looked at the climate project for a couple of days.

Having said that, if I understand correctly, then editors can support the creation of a project without having to also commit to working on it. You possibly know more about it than I do, but if that's the case, could you just add your name as a supporter, and by all means state you won't be able to commit to it? It would be most appreciated

Thanks! Cadar (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Your changes to the entry for ATA 100 were quite destructive and removed useful reference information that changes extremely rarely. ATA Chapters are a specification for organizing information, similar to the Dewey Decimal categories that are enumerated on that topic's entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ATA_100&type=revision&diff=904136364&oldid=899557435

I would appreciate the return of what was built here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.34.165 (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Cross-wiki article soft redirects are invitations to those who are able to make translations. Otherwise there are just red red links. Peter Horn User talk 19:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Peter Horn: I am of the opinion that the redlink is actually more inviting to prospective article creators. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

A mere red link makes for a lot of research and time to find the corresponding article in the original language. It took me a lot of time. Time saving compromise would be for example

counterweight handbrake (de:Wurfhebelbremse). @Bermicourt: That way a would be translators will be able to find the French or German language language texts immediately without wasting much, if any, time. Peter Horn User talk

20:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Provided it's not overused in any one article, I'm happy with the idea of a red link with the interwiki blue link in brackets for the reasons you suggest. Bermicourt (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, the soft redirects are in some cases linked to many articles. To provide a blue link to another language in each one of these articles is, again, a lot of work. One can't win. Soft redirects would save work and time in many cases. Peter Horn User talk 20:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

There is {{

ill|Émile Henricot|fr}} → Émile Henricot [fr]. Once the article exists at English Wikipedia, the link to French will vanish. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 16:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

So I decided to join and make one myself. One that is visually engaging, acts as a guide to the most important climbing topics, but is also automated so it can function without requiring an active editor at all times. And as you said, you have no problems with its quality, so maybe I did a good job. I have tried to incorporate the concerns of those people who were adamantly against portals in these RfCs about their future. Sadly, it gets deleted anyway on a backwards "Miscellany for deletion" technical page that apparently nobody reads besides the same three editors who vote delete on all portal entries (No offense intended). If this goes through then I will probably leave this project. I don't think I want to continue working on it if this is how things are done around here. This is not supposed to be a threat meant to influence the deletion vote, hence I posted it here. I hope this answered your questions. Hecato (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Hecato: for your thoughtful response. I would encourage you, even if the Portal is deleted, to continue to contribute to the articles on climbing and in any other areas that interest you, and not to read the narrow discussions related to the Portal namespace as hostile to high quality treatment of the subject in all the other ways that are possible on Wikipedia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hecato, hope you don't mind me butting in here too.

First, it's great to see a skilled and enthusiastic editor such as yourself joining wikipedia. Welcome!

However, regardless of the outcome of the deletion discussion, I would strongly advise against making a portal your main thing. Portals on Wikipedia are a backwater which get abysmally low page views. There are many reasons for that, which I won't rehearse here, but I can absolutely guarantee that a climbing portal will not be a significant exception to that pattern. So no matter how good a job you do on the portal, you would be extremely lucky to get its readership up to even one tenth of the readership of the head article Climbing.

Climbing got an average of 237 daily pageviews in the first half of 2019. One tenth of that is 24 views per day, which would put the climbing portal at #338 out of 904 portals. That would place it ahead of most country portals, and ahead of other sports portals such as Portal:Golf and Portal:Tennis. The latter two are sports with a mass spectator following, which climbing lacks, so the chances of overtaking them are very low.

It seems to me that the real issue wrt en.wp's coverage climbing is that the head article Climbing is in poor shape. It has been assessed as start-class, but it's really barely beyond a stub. Improving that head article would do far more to boost readership of climbing topics than any portal could possibly achieve.

You say that our concern is the poor state of climbing articles on this site. To put it simply, if the articles are poor, then make them better. You can do that my editing them yourself, and/or by collaborating with other editors through

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear user BrownHairedGirl As it so happens I already have that many pageviews pageviews for Portal:Climbing (Daily average: 29). I assume you are going to change your vote to "keep" now? Hecato (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear, oh ear.

The pageviews for the last 6 days are distorted by the edits which you have made, by your own views of it, by those of other editors to whom you have advertised it.

So that figure of 29 is mostly noise, and utterly useless as evidence of long-term readership. You claim to be a software developer, which is a role which requires at least basic mathematical skills, so I have no doubt that you were well aware of that distortion before you chose to try to base an argument on it.

And in any case, I never set a pageview target.

So I want to make a sincere apology for my welcome to you. I mistakenly described you as skilled, whereas you have just revealed yourself to be a childish eejit, on whom I wasted some of time explaining some context only for it to be used for a smartarse trolling comment.

That sort of juvenile idiocy is not welcome at all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I must be mistaken, but did you not say 24 views per day was a goal I could not reach because it would put me on par with such portals as Golf and Tennis? And since you have explained so kindly in the deletion discussion a portal needs to have a breadth of subject and large pageviews (both of which are measured by pageviews apparently). What am I to make of this? All the metric we have is pageviews and those say my portal must be good. If this one metric we have is not usable then the deletion discussion must be aborted by all means, do you not agree? Hecato (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hecato, before you comment again, you should read this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no interest in your personal insults, it is clear to me at this point that it is impossible to change your mind. You use policies when they suit you and you ignore them when they don't. User UnitedStatesian was at least intellectually honest. Hecato (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, if I needed any more convincing to leave this project, this discussion I just had with an Administrator was it. Hecato (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Hecato, I change my mind when the facts change or when a significant new interpretation is revealed. But if you ever want to change my mind, don't play games. I have a very low tolerance for tricks like misrepresentation and tendentious statistics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Hecato - User:BrownHairedGirl is specifically saying that she doesn't tolerate the misuse of statistics. She wasn't referring to the proper use of statistics. People who are knowledgeable in statistics, and I think that BHG is one, know the difference. I am perhaps even more intolerant of the misuse of statistics. I have forgotten all of the higher mathematics that I learned in college, but I haven't forgotten statistics, or high school math. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Explosives, a portal you have made significant contributions to, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Explosives until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

No significant changes since the page was deleted at AFD.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Elimination of fraternities at Williams College and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and
  may be deleted
  .
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You may wish to delete Portal:Punjab, Pakistan. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 18:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Done, thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This probably constitutes edit warring. I had just removed exactly that pointless description, because it was pointless. Why did you restore it? Perhaps more pointfully, what could be done to the script to help you notice that you're re-adding exactly the same thing that you or someone else added, so you don't accidentally engage in edit wars? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:: sorry about that, and you are correct, there is nothing in the script to identify a re-add. I would suggest if you come across a short description that is problematic, rather than deleting it, you change it to {{short description}}; this will ensure the script does not identify it as missing and create the risk of a re-add. I have done that on the Universities list. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

That ...doesn't seem to work the way I think you intended it to. For one thing, your edit on Wikidata is probably a violation of Wikidata's rules on labels.

Could there maybe be a system by which all the WikiProjects get processed one day, generic labels never get added, and then everyone agrees to just leave them alone after that?

Or maybe that's not a good idea. It might help if I understood what the point of adding this template to non-mainspace pages is supposed to be. (I know what it does. I don't understand why anyone would possibly care, outside the mainspace.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:: I have reverted the Wikidata edit, though I know of no rule that the edit violated. Because non-mainspace pages are visible using the WP mobile app, short descriptions are used on them; in terms of process, I would suggest you contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions so any suggestions you have can be considered by a broader audience. I note that no other wikiPorject has contacted me to raise an issue with "Wikimedia subject-area collaboration" as a short description on a WikiProject. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Have you read d:Help:Label? Don't pay too much attention to the "proposed" template at the top: Wikidata is slow to formally adopt rules, but these are the ones that are enforced by that community.

It appears that there are four hundred of these pointless copies of Wikidata's non-descriptions of WikiProject pages. I wish you would stop doing that. Improving descriptions is good; copying poor ones between projects is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

We obviously disagree. Happy to listen to a

third opinion if you feel strongly enough to solicit one. Of course I am not going to intentionally edit war if you want to remove all the edits I made. UnitedStatesian (talk

) 05:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I refer you to this thread. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I am well aware of the thread; I think its pretty clear conclusion is that "Wikimedia subject-area collaboration" is an improvement over no short description at all (especially in cases like Wikipedia:WikiProject Furry where the title alone is unclear), and any editor is welcome to further improve the short description; the fact that in 400 cases no editor has done so shows me that short description is actually pretty good. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Whispering was:

This submission provides insufficient

guide to writing better articles

for information on how to better format your submission.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hamiltonian group action and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and
  may be deleted
  .
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Whispering^(t) 15:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Just saw this. I made the redirect 10 years ago and therefore don't remember making it so I have no comment on it but I appreciate you letting me know. FlyingLeopard2014 (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It feels really weird to leave you, UnitedStatesian, these templates. You know the routine, the empty categories sit for a week and if they are still empty next Friday, they will be deleted. If you can use them, fill them up! Thanks for not only tagging categories but creating them, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries @Liz:, and again, you're very welcome. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello UnitedStatesian. I am employed by a communications firm, and I have been working since May 2019 to improve a draft of an article for a client, Resideo, a public company operating in the smart-home technologies marketplace. In response to feedback from Wikipedia reviewers on previous drafts, I have made improvements on sourcing and, I believe, I have removed all promotional language that may have been biased. I researched other company pages created as a result of spin offs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Corporate_spin-offs) and used them as inspiration for the Resideo article structure. Before I resubmit this for approval, I would appreciate any feedback from you that would further improve the article or any comments you have on the subject's notability. I understand I am working in a conflict of interest/paid editing situation, which is why I am asking for your help. Here is a link to review it in the draft space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Resideo Nellie04 (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to help, but I'm not sure I was suppossed to do what I did. I was writing like it was a talk page instead of a template. I noticed that you edited the template before I did. Is there something I should have done differently here/or a checklist of some sort before adding to it? Clovermoss (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)≥

Update: It's been fixed by Redrose64. The comment/signature didn't belong on the template. Clovermoss (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know anything about categories..... should global warming also be a cat key? Of is it automatically includd as a sub cat of climate change?

Hi, re this edit: please note that |TF_2_QUALITY= is not a yes/no parameter - all non-blank values are treated as "yes". Removal of values for

  |tf 2 importance={{{Scotland-importance|}}}
  |TF_2_ASSESSMENT_CAT= Scotland Transport articles

has also caused problems. All that you have done is move pages like Talk:Aberdeen railway station from Category:Start-Class Scotland Transport articles and Category:Mid-importance Scotland Transport articles (which both exist) to Category:Start-Class WikiProject Transport in Scotland articles and Category:Unknown-importance WikiProject Transport in Scotland articles (which do not exist). Please revert your changes and test thoroughly before reinstating. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reverted. Will continue testing. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello UnitedStatesian,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman

, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to

WP:COIN

if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for
  organisations and companies
  .
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with
  WP:NPPNE
  . Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Greetings UnitedStatesian, Tonight I posted for first time to here. I checked

You are very welcome @JoeHebda:. Thanks for all your good work on the Portal. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi UnitedStatesian, as a member of WikiProject Climate Change, I would like to invite you to support the Wikimedia Sustainability Initiative by adding your name to the list of supporters. Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

re [1] - thought that was in the "hidden text" part - didn't notice it was showing. ty. — Ched (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, could you explain a little more about your edit, please? I know that I have to alter wiki-linking and photos and such enough so they don't get 'counted' in wiki-usage until they go live, but I thought categories weren't part of that. If you know of a guideline regarding this, that would really help out a lot. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, @

WP:USERNOCAT; let me know if you need anything else. UnitedStatesian (talk

) 16:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I created a page Draft:Reverse Logistics Association, which was recently deleted due to inactivity. I hadn't made any edits, because I was still waiting for a response to questions I tried to ask. The standard for notability requires outside mention in significant sources, as I recall. While I understand the relevance of this threshold for individuals, it seems to me that for organizations, there could be other standards of notability. Magazines and websites are filled with profiles of individuals. Organizations don't receive that kind of media coverage, because people wouldn't want to read them. People already know what the most significant organizations in their field are.

I looked at the other professional organizations that are related to the RLA, and none of them presented evidence to meet the stated threshold of notability. I'm not saying all of those pages should be taken down, I'm just saying the RLA is actually more notable than them. The RLA is regularly quoted as being authoritative about the state of industry in places like the Wall Street Journal. If the WSJ thinks so highly of an organization as to ask its opinion on things, that is a lot more evidence for notability than the other organizations have provided. If academics cite the organization's information in their research, that's another strong piece of evidence of the stature of the organization, and much more important than a short profile article in some other publication. An organization should be judged by what it does for the people in its area/industry/whatever, by the value it contributes.

I would like to make this argument to someone, but I can't figure out how to accomplish that. I know that all of you volunteers can't respond to everyone's questions. But I've written something like this on other editors' pages, and never gotten any suggestions, so any suggestions you can make would be appreciated. Thanks Rontl (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ronti: thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and for your questions; I see you have already requested it be undeleted, which is the first step. Once it is, if you point me to where you asked your questions, or if you don't mind re-asking them here, I will try to be as helpful as I can as you edit the draft. Best, UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reinstating my draft!

My submission was rejected because an editor felt it didn't meet the standard for notability. The definition of notability is "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources." I am working to collect more coverage about the RLA, which I will add to the entry. However, there are already cites in the draft of the RLA being quoted numerous times in places like the WSJ and Forbes. Those publications have come to the RLA for information, and quote what it has to say, and these publications are clearly "published, reliable, secondary sources."

The quotes in those sources have apparently been dismissed as "passing mentions." Having the Wall Street Journal ask the organization for information is not a "passing mention." Wikipedia and Wiktionary don't have definitions of "mention in passing," but Collier's says "If you mention something in passing, you mention it briefly while you are talking or writing about something else." The RLA is not being mentioned in passing in the cites I have provided; it has been actively sought out by the authors of these articles for its expertise. The journalists' whole point of quoting the RLA is to convey to the readers the information from the representative of the group. A mention in passing is would be "there are many supply chain organizations, such as the Reverse Logistics Association, INFORMS, and the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals who all..."

Since these quotes are clearly not mentions in passing, is the problem that I just don't have enough of them to be "significant?" If that is the case, how many more are needed to be "significant?"

Or, is the problem that "significant coverage" is interpreted to mean long articles strictly about the article’s subject? I know that the ones I have so far are only short quotes, not long profiles, but Forbes and the WSJ don't do long profiles on organizations. I could understand the relevance of long articles for individuals, movie stars, companies, or products. But for non-profit trade groups, that seems like much too high of a bar. The WSJ writes articles about new companies all the time, because people want to learn about new companies and new products. But they don't write long articles about new trade groups, because nobody cares about a brand new trade group, because they haven't done anything yet. And there isn't any need to write long articles about established trade groups, because everyone in that industry already knows about the group, which is going about its work.

My final issue is the fact that virtually none of the articles about peer trade groups come close to meeting the standard my article is being held to. On the list of Trade Groups, where my article would be classified, there are many related to logistics, at the bottom of the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_industry_trade_groups_in_the_United_States

If you look at all of those pages (and I have), very few of them even bother to offer evidence that they meet the definition of notability, and those that try don’t meet the standard my article is being held to. My draft has, to me, more evidence of notability than any of those other trade group articles. And if my article doesn't have enough, than neither do those articles, and they should all be deleted, too. But I don't want theirs deleted. I just want mine to join theirs. I have the Wall Street Journal and Forbes quoting the RLA as a reliable source. To me that's proof that it is an organization being an accepted authority within its field.

I may be tilting after windmills here, but it seems to me that there is evidence of significant coverage, not just in passing, and that the peer trade group articles have not met this standard, and yet those articles are allowed, while mine is not. So, to summarize my questions

1. Since my evidence is clearly from "published, reliable, secondary sources," and these quotes are “not just passing mentions”, how much more do I need to have to amount to “significant coverage?”
2. Specifically, how many more quotes do I need in the WSJ, etc., to add up to “significant coverage”?
3. Why is this article being held to a different standard than the articles about similar organizations?

Thanks again. Rontl (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Rontl: thanks again for your questions and continued work. "Significant coverage" can be tough to understand, but it comes down to this: quotes from a trade association's people in an article that has a different subject (such as Reverse logistics itself) do not qualify as significant coverage, no matter how many of them there are; the trade association itself has to be the subject of the article. Think of an article headlined "Acme Corp's CEO, others, single out RLA as the most powerful lobbying force on Capitol Hill": that would probably qualify (if in a reliable source, and resulting from the source's independent reporting, not regurgitation of a press release). As to your question of the apparent inconsistent standards, that is unfortunately a fact of Wikipedia; eventually articles that do not meet the standard and are not improved will be deleted, but in the meantime we want to prevent new articles from being added that do not meet the standard. Happy to look at any sources you uncover and give my comments. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, re this and many similar edits: why are you putting {{WikiProject status}} at (or close to) the bottom? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: thanks for the question. Where the WikiProject has a sophisticated layout with tabs or boxes, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who, my fear is that the status template at the top would detract from the aesthetics of the Project page and thus make it likely the add would be reverted. But if you or any other editor feels the placement is ok at the top, please feel free to move it there. Best, UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Rakuten.com instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The US website has an article.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rakuten US and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and
  may be deleted
  .
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata. Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Please be more cautious and do your due diligence before adding G13 tags. I had literally contested the addition of it no less than 2 hours prior to your re-adding it. Praxidicae (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: thanks for the note, and sorry about that. I will do so. Best, UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action here. I'm usually aware of this problem but simply forgot. As I'm just working a section at a time through a near-stub, I shouldn't have copied them over in the first place. Sjwells53 (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Re

@RHaworth: I agree that when the title matches, at least closely, draft-to-mainspace (and draft-to-draft) redirects are fine and I have not CSD'd them. But erroneous titles, on the other hand, pollute the searchbox when it is used to search for drafts by titles, and should be deleted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

good stuff getting userspace out of insect and other categories - well done ! JarrahTree 05:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: thank you very much, always nice to get good feedback. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

A final update, for now:

The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.

Regards,

-— Isarra ༆ 19:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian: Just to let you know that User:Guilherme Burn, undid your redirect saying that Central America isn't part of Latin America. It is part of Latin America, so I undid him twice. He undid my redirect both times. So you will have to nominate this portal again.Catfurball (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Nobody undid the redirect. It was a portal created from a redirect. What's the problem with that? This is a portal with single-page layout that I consider as an important case study for automation tools. As I said in the edit summaries it's okay to make it a redirect again, per MfD or merge proposal.Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Someone else removed the Category:1980s murders in Finland category from Raumanmeri school shooting (although the student was too young to be charged) Hugo999 (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@

original research. UnitedStatesian (talk

) 04:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The category got emptied, so there's no way for me to contest the deletion. You can go on with it, thanks. 3RDRANGER (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Greetings! Thanks for the help at the WikiProject with all the under-the-hood things!

We could really use your help designing some tools to help with a major wikignome campaign.

THE PROBLEM

Across the Eng Wikipedia there are a bunch of things that link to "climate change". I think I heard 4000-5000 or something like that. As you may know, the article with that title has just been renamed

THE GOAL

Is to go through all those links so they point at the right article (

DETAILS AND HOW YOU COULD HELP

This raises all sorts of questions, such as leaving behind a piped link with different text that makes sense; maybe leaving an invisible comment explaining why it was changed and by who etc; how to handle such links in other editors talk comments. But those things are all details.

For starters, we need a good way to keep track of this effort. Since I was once a programmer I thought "that's what code is for!" Do you think this would work?

• Create a maintenance category for "contains a link to 'climate change'", and two sub cats "unchecked" and "verified"
• Someone pulls the right lever so every page with such a link is placd in the unchecked sub-cat
• Auditing begins

An editor looks at each link and do what is needed (more details to be determined later)

Before saving, editor changes the sub-cat from "unchecked" to "verified"

QUESTIONS

Is that a sensible approach?

Could you help set it up?

Once that basic structure is in place, the next round of questions would be "what tools exist to make working on any given article efficient? But I'll save that for later. Right now we just need to create some lifejackets so we don't drown in the simple fact that there are so many pages to keep track of.

Thanks for reading.... and if there's anyone you can think of who might be good to recruit on the design and coding side, please share!

• @
  NewsAndEventsGuy: I don't think this is necessary. I did a spot check of what links to climate change (you can see them at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Climate_change), and almost all of them actually relate to global warming, so do not need to be fixed; the handful I saw that did need to be fixed I took care of. Any others that are mistargeted can be fixed over time as editors come across them. UnitedStatesian (talk
  ) 14:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

True, its a lot better than it was, now that the former article "climate change" became

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 15:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)